Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the promoters of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
That, if the bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the bill is the same in every respect as the bill brought from the Lords in the present session;

That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;

That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;

That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Aviation Industry (South Wales)

Mr. John Smith: What assessment he has made of the impact on the aviation industry in South Wales of the possible relocation of aero-engine jobs at RAF St. Athan to the south of England; and if he will make a statement. [136862]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Mr. Speaker, as this is the first Welsh Question Time since you became Speaker, may I, on behalf of all Welsh Members, wish you well in your office?
The workers at St. Athan are employed by the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, responsibility for which lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

I understand that this proposal is subject to formal, confidential consultation between the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and the trade unions.

Mr. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend meet the Secretary of State for Defence at the earliest opportunity, to discuss not only the possible loss of jobs but the proposal to move DARA from RAF St. Athan to Cardiff airport? I understand that that could result in as few as half the work force being invited to move with DARA, leaving far too few personnel to run the biggest military support base in western Europe. If that hare-brained proposal was accepted—I doubt that it will be—thousands of jobs would be at risk. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to do all in his power to put a stop to it.

Mr. Murphy: As I said previously, DARA has proposed a transfer of engine overhaul work, which comprises about 165 civilian staff, to another site in Hampshire. That is the only firm proposal of which we are aware that poses any threat to jobs, and it is subject to full consultation. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall certainly raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Fuel Duty (Hill Farmers)

Mr. Christopher Chope: When he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union in Wales to discuss the impact of fuel duty upon hill farmers. [136863]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In the past few weeks, I have met representatives of both the main Welsh farming unions and discussed a wide range of issues, including fuel duty. I have also met a delegation of farmers, hauliers and others, led by Mr. Brynle Williams.

Mr. Chope: If, as he claims, the Secretary of State has been meeting hill farmers, why was he not able to secure a better deal for them in the Chancellor's recent statement? Did he read the evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry from Mr. Pratt, a hill farmer in the Brecon Beacons, who said that his total net income last year was £1,600 and that, as a result of extra taxes on fuel, his costs have already increased by £2,654 this year? Why should Mr. Pratt have to pay the highest fuel taxes in Europe so that the national health service can be subsidised?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's last comment was unworthy, as I am sure that all the farmers in Wales are conscious of the need to make sure that the NHS and all our public services are properly funded.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's first question, using figures that are based on cash income—the best reflection of the genuine day-to-day position of Welsh farmers—the estimated cash income for Welsh hill farmers for this financial year was £20,000. That figure is down by 5 per cent. on that of the previous year. However, I appreciate that that is an average and that, within those figures, there are considerable difficulties for individual farmers. I must say that, thanks to the Conservative party's


economic policies, many of my constituents were forced in the 1980s and much of the 1990s to live on incomes that were well below the level that I have cited.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In my right hon. Friend's talks with hill farmers on the impact on their livelihood of fuel duty, was there any discussion of the decisions of the previous Government, with their totally London-centric, overbearing attitude of omniscience? They pushed aside the advice of the chief medical officer of the then Welsh Office that there was something badly wrong with the handling of the BSE crisis. If they had listened to Wales, hill farmers would not have half the trouble that they have today.

Mr. Murphy: All of us have read the report and are conscious of the fact that officials in the Welsh Office at the time were extremely diligent in the advice that they gave. As it turned out, their advice was timely but, unfortunately, it was not followed by their colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall—although I guess that is a matter for another debate.

Mr. Robert Walter: Mr. Speaker, as this is your first Welsh Question Time as Speaker, I echo the personal good wishes of the Secretary of State.
Hill farmers and all those who live in rural Wales have been severely affected by the 34 per cent. increase in fuel duty that has occurred since the Government came to power. Hill farmers cannot take their sheep to market by public transport, and those who live in isolated rural villages have to use their car to go to work, to take their children to school and to go shopping. The Chancellor has not cut the duty on fuel—he has created the mirage of ultra-low sulphur fuel. How many filling stations in Wales stock ultra-low sulphur petrol, and how many does he estimate will have it by April next year?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom were governed for two decades by the Conservative party. Many of the difficulties that are now facing us in Wales are a direct consequence of decisions taken by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
On the availability of low sulphur fuels, the hon. Gentleman knows that low sulphur diesel is generally available and that decreases in the duty on low sulphur petrol will come into effect in March next year. We are assured by the industry that that fuel will be available throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales.

Mr. Paul Flynn: After 50 years of generous and very large subsidies for farmers in this country, how is that farmers in New Zealand, who have not received a penny in subsidies for the past 15 years, can produce meat, have it transported across the world and offer it on the British market at a lower price than that charged by farmers in Wales? Is not the truth that subsidies are not the answer to but the cause of farmers' problems?

Mr. Murphy: Happily, it does not fall on my shoulders to answer questions on New Zealand agriculture. Although I accept my hon. Friend's point, I am sure that he is aware that the farming community in rural Wales faces genuine problems, which the Government are doing their best to overcome.

Rail Services

Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on rail services to Wales and the west country. [136864]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular discussions with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport.

Mr. Heath: Must not Isambard Kingdom Brunel be turning in his grave at what has happened to God's wonderful railway? There have been broken rails, a criminally dangerous signalling system at Paddington and clapped-out locomotives that simply break down half the time. Do not the people of Wales and the west country deserve a better railway system? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to talk to his colleagues and to authorities in Wales, and on the other side of the bridge in the west country, to ensure that we have the railway system we deserve?

Mr. Murphy: I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more, especially because, many years ago, I had the privilege of fighting his seat in the west country. As I am now Secretary of State for Wales, he will be aware that I failed to win that seat.
The task facing this country is to get a safe and efficient railway system working at full capacity as quickly as possible. That imperative was made crystal clear to railway companies by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport. The whole House is aware of the serious problems in Wales and the west country. The regulator has said that by next Monday there will be a sustainable timetable, so that people will be conscious of the amount of time they have to spend on trains. By the end of this week, I hope to have further information on how best to repair track and ensure the safety of the system. I hope that the bulk of repairs will have been completed by Christmas.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that our constituents want railways to be run as a public service, whereas those who currently run railways are interested not in providing a service but in making a quick profit?

Mr. Murphy: I am sure that most hon. Members believe that many of the problems that we are currently facing were the direct result of the ideological and misguided policy of railway privatisation, which was carried out by the Conservative Government during their final years in power. They were warned that privatisation would be a disaster, and that turned out to be the case.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I, too, offer you our congratulations on your appointment, Mr. Speaker, and wish you well in your responsibilities.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there have been improvements in the rolling stock on the north Wales line recently and that Virgin Trains will again introduce new stock, next year? Does the right


hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if the best use is to be made of the new rolling stock, we need to upgrade the line in north Wales?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are plans to upgrade the line between Crewe and Bangor. Will he impress on Rail track and the Strategic Rail Authority the need to extend the work to Holyhead?

Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more. Our railway system across north Wales, and the section of the trans-European network from Ireland to England, is one of the most important links between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, as well as between different parts of Wales. I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority will take that into account in considering bids for the single franchise.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of all Virgin services to north Wales constitutes major discrimination against my constituents and others? Yesterday, two people from north Wales wanted to travel to the House of Commons to attend a reception connected with lupus, a serious medical condition. The only way in which they could have come to London was by reserving seats, and that facility was not available to them, although it is available on some Virgin services between London and other parts of the country. Will my right hon. Friend please undertake to investigate this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is, of course, right about the inconvenience caused to her constituents, which is also experienced by Members and their constituents throughout Wales. As she knows, following a meeting with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister last Thursday, Rail track announced that the bulk of the necessary track repairs would be completed by Christmas, and the remainder by Easter. It also announced that the industry planned to publish a national track recovery plan this Friday—which, as I have told the House, will include details of a sustainable timetable that will come into force next Monday.
The main problem is the lack of reliability. Even if it takes longer to travel from one place to another, ensuring that people know how long the journey will take constitutes a big improvement in itself.

Employment

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the current employment prospects for the country; and if he will make a statement. [136865]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I meet the First Minister regularly and discuss a wide range of issues, including employment in Wales. There has been a steady increase in employment. The number of people of working age in employment in Wales has increased, from more than 1,181,000 in May 1997 to more than 1,215,000 in May 2000. Figures published today by the labour force survey of the Office for National Statistics show that the number of people in work in Wales is now 1,261,000.

Mr. Llwyd: Gross domestic product in Wales has fallen by 3 percentage points since new Labour took

office, and we have lost several thousand jobs in the Japanese hi-tech industries in south Wales recently. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State made any representations to their colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry? If not, why not?

Mr. Hanson: We have regular discussions with all Departments about the economy in Wales.
Employment in Wales has increased by 80,000 since the general election. Youth unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent. since the election, thanks to the new deal, and long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. Genuine difficulties occasionally occur in industry in Wales and elsewhere, but we are dealing with the fall in GDP through objective 1 funding, and we will do all we can to ensure that employment in Wales continues to rise.

Mr. Chris Ruane: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Welsh development agency and the Devonshire county council economic development committee on the creation, in the past four weeks alone, of 480 jobs at WTS Holdings in Prestatyn, 170 jobs at Hotpoint in Bodelwyddan, 150 jobs at TRB in St. Asaph, 1,000 proposed jobs related to Devonshire county council objective 1 projects, and 300 jobs at Morrison's superstore?

Mr. Hanson: I will certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those companies on creating jobs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.

Mr. Hanson: The job opportunities in Denbighshire and my hon. Friend's constituency are in no mean part due to his efforts. The employment increases that have occurred are part of the strong, stable economy that we have in Wales—as, indeed, are the 80,000 new jobs that have been created since the general election. We now have the lowest level of unemployment in Wales for some considerable time—certainly, lower than that throughout the Conservative years.

Mr. John Bercow: Given last week's finding of the National Centre for Social Research that 80 per cent. of those who have supposedly found jobs through the new deal for young people would have got them any way; that people completing the training and education option of the new deal are twice as likely not to get a job as to get one, and that the average cost for each job through the new deal is about £17,000, why does not the hon. Gentleman give up the unequal struggle and admit that the new deal for young people provides a rotten service at a rip-off price?

Mr. Hanson: I should be surprised if a Question Time went by without the hon. Gentleman whingeing about the new deal. The real issue is that youth unemployment in Wales has fallen by 75 per cent. since the general election. That is in no mean part due to the efforts of the new deal and the Employment Service. I have met new deal workers throughout Wales, all of whom benefit from the scheme. Employers enjoy the scheme and find it worth while, as do the people on it. Given what the hon.


Gentleman has said, they know that the Conservative party would abolish it. That will help us no end at the general election.

Mr. Alun Michael: Last week, I met some young people on the new deal—people who have been given hope and opportunity as a result of being taken into work by the new deal. They are the sort of people who were abandoned by the Conservative party. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be rather nice if the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) were to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who is sitting next to him, and persuade Plaid Cymru in the National Assembly for Wales to start helping this Government and the Government of Wales in the Assembly to make the most of the opportunity provided by objective 1 to create jobs and opportunities for young people and all people in Wales?

Mr. Hanson: Whingeing is not the prerogative of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); with regard to objective 1, it is also that of Plaid Cymru Members. The new deal is working in Wales; it has created jobs and reduced unemployment, especially among young people. It is worth while, but the Conservative party does not support it, and Plaid Cymru is a little lukewarm about objective 1.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Sadly, today's figures show that unemployment is on the rise and, indeed, that unemployment in Wales is on the rise, with thousands of job losses in the manufacturing sector. The M4 corridor used to be a magnet for inward investment. Now, unfortunately, it is job-loss alley, with Panasonic, Sony, Hitachi and Corus announcing recent job losses. Does the Minister think that the introduction of the climate change levy as proposed by the Government will help or hinder job creation in Wales?

Mr. Hanson: From the Ribble Valley, unemployment may appear to be rising in Wales, but those of us who represent seats in Wales know that it is definitely falling. The figures announced today show that unemployment is lower than it was yesterday. That is a genuine fact for the hon. Gentleman to chew on in due course. Despite the difficulties with Sony and other companies, there is still a great deal of high-tech investment in Wales. It should not be forgotten that 3,000 people still work for Panasonic and Sony in Wales.
On the climate change levy, the hon. Gentleman knows the views of the House. The House has voted for it. Many businesses will benefit from the levy, as will the environment, and I support it.

Mr. Evans: Does not that response show that the Government are simply not listening? While the Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly is spending more than £40 million on a new building for itself—three times the original estimate—businesses are being attacked by the Government on several levels, with £5 billion of extra taxes, as well as £5 billion of extra regulation, being heaped on them. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who is prepared to sign up to anything in Europe, which will make Britain less competitive than other countries. That means that we are exporting jobs from this country to our competitors. Will the Secretary of State meet

representatives of the employers—the CBI, the Institute of Directors and especially the Federation of Small Businesses—and listen to them, particularly in regard to their campaign to ensure that the climate change levy does not damage Wales?

Mr. Hanson: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has yet again missed the point. If he had listened to what I said, he would have heard that unemployment has fallen by 80,000 in Wales since the general election. There is positive investment in our community in Wales. It is creating jobs. The Secretary of State meets businesses, the CBI and small businesses regularly—I was with him on Friday evening last week—to discuss issues. They know that the way to a strong economy is through the Government's policies. The Ribble Valley ranter can rant on all he likes, but he will not get far.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my hon. Friend, when he meets the First Secretary, raise with him the recent report that the venture capital firm 3i has closed its offices in Cardiff because of a lack of business opportunities and moved to Bristol? Will he press the First Secretary to do everything that he can to remedy the situation that created that?

Mr. Hanson: I will look into my right hon. Friend's points. I am not aware of the situation that he has raised, but I will look into it and discuss it with the First Minister.

Flooding

Mr. Richard Livsey: What recent discussions he has held with the Environment Agency regarding river flooding in Wales and England. [136866]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): In recent weeks, the Under-Secretary and I have discussed the matter with the Welsh Minister for the Environment, Transport and Planning and others. I am pleased to tell the House that, last Friday, while visiting flood-affected areas of north Wales, I was able to announce that the Welsh block would be increased by some £3 million over the next four years, consequential on additional funding for flood prevention in England. On that visit, I was able to see the results of the dedicated hard work of the emergency services and local authorities in dealing with that serious state of affairs.

Mr. Livsey: I reiterate the words of welcome that you, Mr. Speaker, have been given today.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the greatest possible sympathy needs to be given to flood victims and, indeed, that more money needs to be allocated to the Environment Agency? Much more than the £3 million that he has achieved needs to be allocated; about £12 million is my estimate. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the hard-pressed local authorities are not in a position to fund the Environment Agency properly for flood prevention schemes in Wales? Will he do something to ensure that the agency is properly funded by direct funding from Government, so that it can do the job properly?

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the £3 million is not the only money that is going into flooding in Wales. That is for flood defences over the next number of years, but, only this week, the Assembly has indicated that it will look carefully at all the points, including the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman. In addition, the Bellwin formula has been improved. It will help local authorities and help directly all the people affected by the floods.

Mr. Martyn Jones: As well as talking to the Environment Agency, will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his friends in the Cabinet and with the Association of British Insurers to see if help can be obtained for those unfortunate people in my constituency and elsewhere who have not been able to obtain insurance against flooding?

Mr. Murphy: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he is aware, the Government are committed to discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry can respond more quickly and effectively to such emergencies.

Miss Anne McIntosh: In his discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has the Secretary of State extracted a date for the implementation of new national planning guidance policy—PPG25—and considered the impact on drainage, in particular of new houses being built on flood plains?

Mr. Murphy: No, but I am aware of what the hon. Lady is referring to. This week, the Minister for the Environment, Transport and Planning made a statement to the National Assembly. She is aware of the points that the hon. Lady has made and is looking carefully at future planning applications in areas affected by flooding.

Mr. Huw Edwards: May I inform my right hon. Friend that my constituents in Tintern, Usk and Maesygwartha, near Gilwern, were affected by the recent flooding? Although they commend the work of the emergency services and the county council, who helped in the clear-up, there is clearly a need for local authorities to have more powers and more resources, on the same basis as those provided to the Environment Agency, to invest in flood prevention work.

Mr. Murphy: Yes; I am very conscious of the points that my hon. Friend has made. His constituency is next to mine, and I know the problems that his constituents have faced. I shall ensure that the points he has made are taken up with the First Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Proportional Representation

Dr. Julian Lewis: What his policy is on proportional representation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): We set out our position in October 1998, and again in June 1999, and it has not changed.

Dr. Lewis: Why is it that the Prime Minister is so much more reticent about his position on proportional representation with Members of this House than he used to be with the former leader of the Liberal Democrats when he was trying to carve out a shady deal for a permanent Lib-Lab coalition based on PR? If he will not answer that, will he at least answer this? Will he give an assurance that he will not give his support in the future to a system based on the alternative vote—which is not even proportionate, but simply exaggerates the winning party's number of seats even more than the first-past-the-post option does?

The Prime Minister: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question betrayed a certain nervousness. On the first point, we have introduced proportional representation for the European elections and for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. In relation to PR, however, I am not in favour of any system that breaks the link between constituency and Member of Parliament.

Engagements

Angela Smith: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Angela Smith: Does the Prime Minister recall the dire warnings from Conservative Members that the national minimum wage would cut the number of jobs in this country by more than 1 million? [Interruption.] Does he therefore share my scepticism about their apparent conversion now that we have the highest employment levels for a generation? Nevertheless, many young people, including those who came to my youth forum just last week, feel somewhat disadvantaged. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider removing the temporary differential youth rate for those who are under 22?

The Prime Minister: As we said at the time, we shall keep that under review. However, I think that it is important to recognise that the way in which the minimum wage has been implemented should not, and currently does not, affect youth unemployment levels. Indeed, long-term youth unemployment has been more than halved under this Government. As for my hon. Friend's comment on Conservative Members, as she read out the prediction that they made before the general election, some of them were shouting, "We were right." I do not think they realise that the position has changed, and that there are now 1 million more jobs in the economy, with the introduction of the minimum wage, than there were at the time of the general election.

Mr. William Hague: Last week, the Prime Minister tried to blame everyone but himself for the dome disaster. Now, we have had the National


Audit Office report and a full account of his Cabinet meeting. Can he confirm that the member of the Cabinet who insisted that the project should proceed and said that it "could even make money" was him?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that I said that it should proceed. It is also true, however, as we demonstrated conclusively last week, that funding for the dome, financial management, the dome and the site itself were all agreed by a Cabinet committee when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of it. We still have not had his admission that he was a member of that committee. Perhaps he will admit it, or not, when he asks his next question.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minster did not only say that it should proceed. From the minutes of that meeting, we know the following:
Blair: We are already getting more inquiries from the private sector. There could be a billion pounds of revenue for the UK.
Blair: It is a bit of fun and a bit of learning.
In that meeting, should not the Prime Minister have listened to the Foreign Secretary? He said:
We can always blame the Tories if we stop now. If we go ahead we'll have to take the blame if the whole lot goes wrong.
It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary is not here to tell him that again.
We also know from the National Audit Office report that, in July, when Lord Falconer told Parliament that the dome was trading solvently, he must have known that that was not the case. As Ministers who do not tell the truth in Parliament are meant to resign, when is he going?

The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman should not confuse Cabinet minutes with what appears in The Mail on Sunday, Secondly, if he is in the business of quotes, this one is from December 1999:
But the decision was made by the previous government and this one to do it. Having spent that money, I think it's now the job of all politicians to make a success of it. So we shall go there and join the party.
Who was that? It was the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Hague: Of course we enjoyed the party: we were laughing at the right hon. Gentleman. So there we have it: no resignation and a special exemption from the ministerial code for the Prime Minister's old flat mate. We used to have government by Parliament, then it was by Cabinet. Now we have government by clique. Is not the only reason that the right hon. Gentleman clings on to the discredited dome Minister that, although he may be a useless Minister, he is very convenient as a human shield? Should not the Prime Minister now be man enough to stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the nation without blaming it on somebody else?

The Prime Minister: Last week we had the major economic statement for the country and one might have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have asked about it. It is interesting that, this week, he cannot ask about the economy or public services.
As for the dome, we have said already what the difficulties were and why we still proceeded with it, but if we want to quote at each other across the Chamber, since last week we have discovered something else. In the past few months the shadow culture Secretary has been travelling around the country telling people that the dome is a disaster, asking how we could ever have done it and saying what a waste of money it is. What does he turn out to be? He was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the National Heritage Secretary in the last Conservative Government, and this is what he has said:
From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome…I know that there are domophobes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Maclean, be quiet.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said:
From the outset, I was a supporter of the dome…I know that there are domophobes on both sides of the House—people who think the whole project was destined to be a failure…I am not one of those people.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1306.]
Why does not the Leader of the Opposition take his bandwagon and drive it off somewhere else?

Ms Julie Morgan: While I welcome the extra money for schools in the pre-Budget report, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that it is paid out as quickly as possible? Assuming that the Welsh Assembly uses the £9.9 million allocated to it by the Chancellor for schools, schools in my constituency will get a welcome and much-needed boost.
My constituency includes Whitchurch comprehensive school, the biggest comprehensive school in Wales, ysgol Glan Tâf, the Welsh medium school as well as Corpus Christi Catholic school and Llanishen and Caathay schools. Does my right hon Friend agree that allowing schools to decide their own spending priorities will assist staff, teachers and parents?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to read out the list of schools in her constituency because each one of them will get extra money from the Labour Government. What we now know, courtesy of the shadow Chancellor, is that the Tories would take that money back off those schools. That extra money is there. It is going into the largest real-terms rise in education spending that this country has seen for years.
I know that my hon. Friend has a certain influence in the Welsh Assembly. I hope very much that the Assembly will make sure that that money gets through to the schools that need it to improve our children's education.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On the national health service, is the Prime Minister aware of the number of so-called excess winter deaths that occurred last winter, and will he confirm the figure?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by the term "excess winter deaths," but it is of course the case that there were severe pressures on the NHS last winter. Those pressures will be easier this year, at least in terms of our being prepared for them,


because of the additional money that has been put into the NHS. As many people in the NHS have been saying over the past few days, in winter there is always more pressure. However, we are better prepared and the health service is better funded.
In addition, I can tell the House that there are now some 10,000 more nurses in the health service than three years ago, and that 5,500 nurses are returning to the service as a result of the nurse returner campaign.

Mr. Kennedy: Successive Governments have recorded the numbers of excess winter deaths occurring in the December to March period, when the number of unfortunate deaths rises as a result of climatic and other conditions. Last year, the figures showed that there were 54,000 deaths in the period. There will be another national winter crisis this year. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge in the House this afternoon what he has acknowledged elsewhere—that the persistent under funding of the health service in the first half of this Parliament means that doctors, nurses and patients will have to cope with excess winter deaths again? Does he not accept that there is a degree of urgency about the need for a national plan to combat this disgrace in our country?

The Prime Minister: This Government have put far more money into health service funding than the Liberal Democrat party has ever asked for. However, we had to make sure that any funding that we put into the national health service could be sustained year on year on year. For far too long, there was boom and bust in health service spending, with money put in one year being taken away the next. Now, over a four-year period, there will be the largest sustained increase in health service investment, and we will be able to keep it up. As a result, there are more nurses, doctors and beds. However, it will take time for those people to be trained fully.
In relation to hypothermia, the winter fuel allowance, the cut in VAT on fuel and the extra measures on home insulation show that the Government are doing our best to minimise the pressures. Those pressures will continue, but it is wrong to suggest that we have done nothing to correct the problem.

Mr. Denis Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend join me in extending our best wishes to the remaining British miners and their families, following today's announcement that the European Union has accepted the Government's aid package to the coal industry? I am sure that he will agree that that package will secure the jobs of many thousands of people. However, would he also agree that it is to the eternal shame of the Conservative party that, when in power, it set out to destroy not only Britain's mining industry but the people who relied on it totally?

The Prime Minister: People will remember the record of the Opposition. Many people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies who are dependent on coal mining will welcome today's news. It is a case of the Government helping the industry restructure and make change in a way that preserves jobs

and the fabric of local communities. That stands in sharp and stark contrast to the policies of the previous Government.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The people of Guildford are deeply concerned by plans to put a giant incinerator in our county town. This month, we learned that Government officials have tried to hide the health hazards caused by such incinerators. Why does that culture of secrecy still fester? Why did Labour and Liberal Democrat peers vote last night for a Minister's right to hide information, and against the people's right to freedom of information?

The Prime Minister: So now the Conservatives are the champions of freedom of information. [Laughter.] No, let us be fair. It is just that for 18 years, it slipped their minds somehow. Indeed, at the last election, I seem to remember that in their manifesto they called it an unnecessary gimmick.
I do not know about the actual case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will look into it and write to him about it, but, really, let us have no lessons from the Conservative party about freedom of information.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Many hon. Members will have seen the media coverage of the village of Gowdall in my constituency, which has been submerged by the worst floods in more than 300 years. Residents are concerned and angry at some of the actions of the Environment Agency, fuelled by its refusal to meet villagers last night. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ensure that there is an investigation into the actions of the agency; that the flood defences will be looked at and improved if necessary; and that the Government will play a full and active role in regenerating communities such as Gowdall, including fast-track support wherever possible?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to look into the issue of the Environment Agency's refusal to meet residents in my hon. Friend's constituency who have been affected by the floods, and I will be in touch with him about it.
As for the efforts that we are making generally and nationally, we are spending a substantial additional sum of money on flood defences. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced new money—more than £50 million—to help with that. The rate of Government support under the Bellwin scheme, which reimburses local authorities for the costs of flood damage, used to be at 85 per cent. and is now at 100 per cent. I hope that that shows my hon. Friend and his constituents that we will give them some hope for the future.

Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister explain how a European super-power would not be a European super-state? In his speech on 13 November at Mansion House, he said that it was obvious to him. Will he give the British people a White Paper on the constitutional and political implications of the process towards European integration?

The Prime Minister: Where nation states acting in unison can do more in common than they can alone, that, it seems to me, is the reason for the European Union.


Examples of such states being able to exercise more power and strength together than alone include the current negotiations over Kyoto, world trade and areas of foreign policy where, as a result of us operating together, we are more powerful than individual nations. In other words, we are a super-power.

Ms Julia Drown: The Prime Minister will know that last month Amnesty International launched its global campaign against torture. What steps will the Government be taking to meet the objectives of the campaign? Will my right hon. Friend be working in this Parliament to ensure that we have legislation to ratify the International Criminal Court statute and to outlaw the broking of torture equipment?

The Prime Minister: We are, of course, committed to making sure that we introduce legislation for the International Criminal Court. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks on acts of torture. This country has fought a very strong, solid campaign over a number of years in respect of human rights abuses wherever they occur, and we will carry on doing so.

Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister expand on his definition of a super-power which he offered a few moments ago? He said on Monday that he wanted Europe to be a super-power. Can he name a super-power at any time in the history of the world that has not had its own currency, its own taxes, its own army and its own Government?

The Prime Minister: I cannot name another institution like the European Union, which is precisely why it is a unique union of member states which are nation states coming together to exercise more power than they can alone exert. If the right hon. Gentleman wants an example of Europe as a super-power, he should look at trade negotiations. We are not able, as the United Kingdom, to make a real impact on world trade, but we are as the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, perhaps he can get up and say so.

Mr. Hague: We did not ask the right hon. Gentleman for two minutes of waffle about Europe. We asked him whether any super-power ever had not had those assets which we listed. We take it from his response that the answer is no. There has never been a super-power without its own currency, taxes, army and Government, just as there has never been a Prime Minister who used words so carelessly to please the audience of the moment. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has argued for a super-power, all he could say when the German Foreign Minister called yesterday for an elected head of Europe was that the "time was not right" for that idea. Can he think of a super-power, as he would have it, that has not had an elected head? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: In view of the events of the past week, that is a rather unwise question to ask me. Of course, Mr. Fischer has his view. He wants a European federal super-state. That is true. What is the response of Conservative Members? They hitch up their skirts, go to the sidelines and say, "Get on with the debate, we'll have

nothing to do with it." We should enter into that debate and say why we are against the super-state but in favour of more co-operation.
The idea that we have no support for that position is absurd. A few weeks ago, President Chirac said:
I do not think that one can have a federal Europe…The creation of a United States of Europe is not realistic, because not a single nation is prepared to give up its identity.
I agree entirely. So we have Mr. Fischer arguing one thing and Mr. Chirac arguing something else. I am on the side of those who want Europe to co-operate more closely because it is in our interests to do so, but not to have a federal super-state. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand?

Mr. Hague: We can get a straighter answer from a Florida recount than from the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House. He says that there is a difference between a super-state and a super-power, but there is no example in history to support him. Those who favour a super-state have taken support from his words. The truth is that he wants Europe to be a super-power when the only possible result of such a policy is the creation of a super-state and the end of Britain's independence. Cannot we now see that in the Government's handling of European policy we have a disaster in the making, a distinction without a difference and a Prime Minister without a clue?

The Prime Minister: As usual, with the right hon. Gentleman's pre-rehearsed little jokes, he makes his point. However, he has mentioned the negotiations that are coming up at Nice. His position is to be against any extension of qualified majority voting.
We have done a little research. In the course of the Maastricht treaty, there were 30 items of qualified majority voting agreed, including on free movement of capital, visas, economic guidelines, public health, education—shall I go on? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—consumer protection, European transport and European regional development funds. In all 30 items. How many times did the right hon. Gentleman vote against them? Well, it is a round number that equates roughly to the Conservatives' economic and foreign policy credibility.
The best way to secure the best deal in Europe is to fight for British interests on issues such as tax, border controls and social security, but where it is in our interests to have qualified majority voting, to have that too.
The choice is simple: a Conservative party in the grip of those who would damage our country's true national interests or the Labour party, which will get engaged, and therefore get the best deal for Britain.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr. Speaker: Ann Cryer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mrs. Ann Cryer.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that following the severe flooding of more than 200 homes in the Stockbridge area of my constituency two weeks ago, it is singularly unfortunate that the Conservative leadership of Bradford council is seeking to make political capital out of my unfortunate constituents?

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition went around the country a couple of weeks ago claiming that we were in crisis because of the floods, proving only that bandwagons can be amphibious. I do not know the circumstances of the Conservative leadership of Bradford council, and can only hope that it soon changes back to Labour.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Is the Prime Minister aware that his proposals to scrap community health councils—independent watchdogs for NHS patients, such as Cheshire Central and Chester and Ellesmere Port—is bitterly opposed by my constituents, by patients and by staff? Will he drop those plans?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that there is bitter opposition, which is why the proposals are being consulted on. If he goes round the country, however, the hon. Gentleman will find that people in certain areas do not believe that community health councils have been as effective as they might have been. It is precisely because we want to consult that we have issued the health plan. We will report back to the House in due course on the consultation.

Mr. Mark Todd: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the better regulation taskforce report on environmental regulation and farmers? Will he take from it the need further to improve control of British bureaucracy's implementation of European regulations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome that report, because it makes it clear that we should be careful in implementing European legislation to ensure that we do so with the lightest possible touch. However regulation is extremely important in such areas as safety issues, for example BSE. A balance must be struck, and we are trying to get it right. I very much welcome the report and believe that we shall act on it.

Mr. Peter Brooke: On 13 July, the Prime Minister gave the House an absolute commitment that on the Liaison Committee's report on parliamentary scrutiny there would be free votes on the Government side. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House shaded that commitment by saying that it would be contingent on the Government putting down substantive motions. Will the Prime Minister honour his July commitment by ensuring that the Government put down substantive motions?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons tells me that she did no such

thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes she did."] Well, there is always a free vote on House matters, and the right hon. Gentleman has my assurance that that will remain so.

Ms Claire Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the difficulties that pensioners face in claiming their full entitlements? The measures announced last week are to be welcomed, but we know from the 60,000 currently claiming the minimum income guarantee that they still have problems in receiving what they are entitled to. What will the Government do to ensure that more people will be able to claim the minimum income guarantee?

The Prime Minister: There has been a problem, which is why we launched a campaign to ensure that pensioners entitled to the minimum income guarantee should receive it. I understand that about half a million more pensioners are now claiming it. Those measures, together with additional money for pensions, the winter fuel allowance and free television licences, are an important signal of our commitment to Britain's pensioners. In relation to the winter fuel allowance, free television licences and the Christmas bonuses, the Conservatives' policy is to take those things away from Britain's pensioners.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Royal Ulster Constabulary on intercepting the mortar bomb at Derrylin and the bomb in west Belfast that was destined for the City of London? Will he join us in calling for a moratorium on changes to policing until peace is assured in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, of course the work of the RUC has, as ever, been absolutely invaluable in stopping acts of terrorism. On the Patten reforms, we think that it is important that the reforms should proceed and that, at the same time, all the varied aspects of the agreement into which parties have entered should be implemented properly.

Mr. Speaker: Caroline Hint.

Caroline Flint: My question has already been asked, so I shall sit down.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is due to make a speech today in which he will point out that there is a winners' circle of prosperity in London and south-east England to the detriment of other areas in the country. However, if 700 jobs go at Biwater Industries of Clay Cross, which manufacturers pipes, for no reason apart from a rip-off effect, north-east Derbyshire will become a losers' circle. Will my right hon. Friend therefore have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get that matter referred to the Competition Commission, which is the last means of saving those jobs?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the issue in my hon. Friend's constituency and get back to him as soon as possible.

Points of Order

Mr. Robert Walter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On today's Order Paper there are 29 questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, including five which refer to discussions that he may have had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and two which refer to someone called the First Minister. Section 53(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 states:
The Assembly shall elect one of the Assembly members to be Assembly First Secretary.
Section 53(2) states:
The Assembly First Secretary shall appoint Assembly Secretaries.
The Act's only reference to Ministers is to Ministers of the Crown, and section 43 states that when those powers are devolved, they are devolved to the Assembly, not to individual office holders. There is a clear distinction between the powers and definitions in the Scotland Act 1998 and those in the Government of Wales Act.
I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the correct way in which the First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries should be referred to in the House. Should we use the titles in the legislation passed by the House, or can we call the First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries whatever we like?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. Normally, the Table Office would have corrected the notices to use the First Secretary's correct title. I hope that the proper designation will appear on the Order Paper in future. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter.

Mr. Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that a confusing precedent is not set, may I ask you to advise the House under which Standing Orders a Member may be evicted from the House, even if he has not said anything on the record of the House in violation of its procedures or Standing Orders?

Mr. Speaker: I really do not know the incident to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. However, if he is referring to a previous incident of mine, I have discussed that with the hon. Gentleman concerned and we have come to an understanding. I will ensure that there is good order in the House: that is the important thing. There will be occasions when, perhaps, I request that an hon. Member leave the Chamber even though he or she may not have broken any rules. However, for the sake of order, I will ask that hon. Member to leave. There again, that is a request, and it is up to the hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady to accept it. I hope that that helps.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you perhaps invite the Prime Minister to ensure that the record is corrected, and that his reference to half a million new people claiming the minimum guarantee is altered to the 24-plus thousand who, in fact, have got it, according to a House of Commons answer.

Mr. Speaker: These are matters of argument. However, I suspect that the hon. Lady has managed to put something on the record.

Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability (No. 2)

Mr. Alan Simpson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes.
Let me turn the clock back a moment. It was late in the afternoon of Friday 31 March that Mr. Petersen reserved a telephone call from the German authorities notifying him that genetic contamination had been found in the oilseed rape seeds supplied by his company, Advanta UK. The House will recall that, in the furious debates of the following two months, the Government decided that the crop planted in the United Kingdom should be destroyed. In the UK alone, more than 5,000 hectares of oilseed rape had to be ploughed in, along with the entirety of that season's plantings in Germany, France and Sweden.
The question that remained was who was liable for the damage and loss caused in that exercise. When Advanta came to give evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it said that it had supplied what it thought to be non-genetically modified seeds. The crop had been cultivated on land never used for GM crop growing, and with separation distances 20 times that required in the United Kingdom. In turn, farmers had grown in good faith crops that they believed to be non-GM. They were as shocked as anyone else to discover that their crops were contaminated by the Aventis herbicide-tolerant gene.
I hope that the House will excuse the pun when I say that the crunch in deciding what to do about the issue came when the oilseed crushing industry announced that it was refusing to buy any of that season's contaminated crop. That was great news for consumers, but pretty frightening news for the farmers who faced financial disaster.
To its credit, Advanta told the Select Committee that it had stepped in and picked up many of the bills relating to those losses. However, it was adamant that in doing so it accepted no legal liability for the damage or loss. That is the contradictory position that we are currently in and which my Bill seeks to address. The biotechnology industry has spent millions of pounds trying to convince society that its products are safe, yet, when asked whether they accept producer liability for the products, the answer is absolutely no.
When we turn to UK law to find out who is liable, the answer is unclear. The issue threatens to become one of the big whodunnits of our time and, sadly, our position as a Parliament appears to be that we neither know nor care what is the answer to that question.
I have recently taken part in the Chardon LL hearings elsewhere in London. They are destined, I fear, to descend rapidly into farce. On the day on which I gave evidence, MAFF issued a press release pointing out that it was unable to identify not the fields in which the crop trials had taken place but the countries. This situation risks making a mockery of the issues of scrutiny and liability that are central to how we view the introduction of GM crops into the food chain and the arable and animal system.
My Bill would fill the loopholes in our legislative framework, and it would do so in five ways. It would place a duty on Government to apply the precautionary principle to which we signed up as a country in the biosafety protocol negotiated in Montreal this year. It would require the Government to introduce a new scrutiny regime that was at least equal to the paradigm shift into which biotechnology and genetic manipulation have taken us. It has to be the case that, when faced with a technology that can cross all the frontiers that nature has set for us, we introduce a scrutiny system to test the technology at least as rigorously as we would test a new drug, rather than looking at the technology as a novel form of cake decoration.
For industry, three critical changes would have to be made vis-à-vis its relationship with consumers and farmers. The Bill would require companies to accept that they were corporately liable for the harm or damage that resulted from the release of GM organisms that they had produced or marketed. We would make it a condition of any marketing consent or licences that the companies be in possession of full public liability insurance in respect of any damage that followed.
Finally, we would require the companies to work with the Government in the creation of a compensation fund to ensure that, at least where damage from genetic contamination could be identified, even though its specific source was unclear, the farmer and the consumer would not be left to pick up the bill.
Why is the Bill needed? The current arrangements leave farmers hanging out to dry. NFU Mutual, the largest insurance company for the farming community, has already stated that it will not insure against genetic contamination or damage. Supermarkets have turned their back on purchasing genetically contaminated seed supplies or crops. Recently, Iceland went even further: it will no longer honour contracts to purchase non-GM cattle food if it turns out to be contaminated.
To add insult to farmers' financial injury, a legal opinion supplied to Friends of the Earth states that the idea of farmers seeking financial remedy or redress through civil action in the courts is pretty much a non-starter. Those farmers who were not bankrupt at the start of the process certainly would be long before they were even close to the possibility of obtaining redress.
That is why the Government must take a lead. We must place producer liability in the lap of the biotechnology industry rather than with the farmer or the community. We must do that now because the issue will not go away. The danger is that if we do not address the problem, it will move alternately between tragedy and farce.
Two weeks ago, Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, came to the UK to deliver a message to the Prime Minister, warning of the inherent danger that the UK could end up in the same position as the United States. That farmer has never planted, grown or tried to market GM crops, but he found that some of Monsanto's GM seeds were growing on his land. He was even more astonished when Monsanto decided to sue him for that. The company wants to levy fines on farmers of up to $30,000 for the adventitious arrival of GM crops on their land, even though the farmers do not know that the crops are growing there.
If we are to avoid being caught up in such farcical situations, the Government must give a lead. In the social climate set by the Phillips report after the crisis and

tragedy of BSE and CJD, the public expect a lead from the Government on the definition and appraisal of risk, and on scrutiny, responsibility and liability. We must do that by taking the path of legislation, not that of litigation. I hope that the Government will hear and respond to this message, and that the House will endorse it.

Dr. Ian Gibson: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak on this measure, as I do not want to take too much time from discussion of our main business today. I also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) that my opposition to his Bill will have no bearing on my selection decisions for the parliamentary football team.
I have some reservations about GM food, but I do not accept that it presents any more difficulties than those that arise in conventional breeding. My views were sharpened recently, when I led a parliamentary science and technology delegation to China where we saw GM cotton fields and learned of the advantages that had resulted. There is less use of pesticide and insecticide, and the flourishing cotton plants are not savaged by insects.
Conventional breeding is imprecise, but it has been successful because plant breeders have learned how to test and evaluate plants, selecting only those with desirable characteristics and rejecting the rest. All the tests in conventional breeding are practical, and there is a wide range of additional safety assessments for GM crops. The tests evaluate actual and potential impact on food, human and animal health and the environment. Although trials are still continuing, there is as yet no evidence that would lead us to assume that GM crops are less safe than conventionally bred crops. The demonisation of genetically modified crops and the deification of organic foods are unacceptable at the current time. All food crops should be subjected to thorough examination for benefits, and effects on health, the environment and so on.
I share my hon. Friend's views about multinational companies and the undermining of traditional farming practices. I repeat that I strongly agree that we need to provide crops that are of clear benefit to the consumer, taking into account price, health implications and effects on the environment. However, the Bill should address all crops, whatever technology is used in their production. The Bill is particularly limited on the liability issues.
There is no crop that we eat, however we produce it, that can be deemed natural. That is another reason why I believe the Bill to be flawed. The truth really is that we cannot say what food, however it is produced, is absolutely safe and carries absolutely no risk. I welcome the Food Standards Agency and its assessment of the problems of all crops. John Krebs has made an illuminating start in the arena of organic foods, and other foods will now be subjected to the same rigid scrutiny.
If we deter scientific experimentation by passing such a Bill, which is so narrowly focused, we may one day find that the world population has doubled, and that nutritional needs cannot be met by food redistribution. However, I am not arguing that transgenic foods are the answer.
The Bill is far too limited, and we should vote against it today.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 30.

Division No. 334]
[3.46 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Ms Jenny


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Barnes, Harry
Keetch, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Kidney, David


Bercow, John
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Berry, Roger
Kingham, Ms Tess


Brake, Tom
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Brand, Dr Peter
Livsey, Richard


Brazier, Julian
Llwyd, Elfyn


Breed, Colin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Burstow, Paul
McDonnell, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
McWalter, Tony


Chaytor, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Chidgey, David
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Moore, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Cotter, Brian
Mudie, George


Crausby, David
Oaten, Mark


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Pond, Chris


Dismore, Andrew
Pound, Stephen


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Donohoe, Brian H
Quinn, Lawrie


Drew, David
Rendel, David


Drown, Ms Julia
Robertson, Laurence


Evans, Nigel
Ruddock, Joan


Foster, Don (Bath)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
St Aubyn, Nick


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sanders, Adrian


Godman, Dr Norman A
Sawford, Phil


Hayes, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Hepburn, Stephen
Skinner, Dennis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Illsley, Eric
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Stinchcombe, Paul





Stunell, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Swayne, Desmond
Webb, Steve


Tapsell Sir Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wills, Phil


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Thompson, William



Tonge, Dr Jenny
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Huw Edwards and


Walley, Ms Joan
Miss Anne McIntosh.


NOES


Ashton, Joe
Jenkins, Brian


Blizzard, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Cawsey, Ian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McFall, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Maxton, John


(Copeland)
Moffatt, Laura


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Curry, Rt Hon David
Page Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Sheerman, Barry


Dobbin, Jim
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flynn, Paul
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Gapes, Mike
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mrs. Anne Campbell and


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mr. Nigel Beard.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Norman Baker, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. David Drew, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Llew Smith, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. John McDonnell, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND PRODUCER LIABILITY (No. 2)

Mr. Alan Simpson accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the safety of and liability for the deliberate release or marketing of genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food; to establish a genetically modified organism compensation fund; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed [Bill 184].

Transport Bill [Ways and Means]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise
(1) the imposition of charges in respect of the execution of works in a highway, and
(2) the charging of fees in connection with driver training courses.
The resolution relates to two amendments to the Bill that were made in another place. The Government tabled them to fulfil commitments made in response to amendments tabled by others at an earlier stage. I shall speak to them briefly.
The provision in the resolution on the execution of works in a highway arises from the fact that the Bill now contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations so that local authorities can charge utility companies from the start of any works that they undertake on the street; that is known as lane rental.
The provision on driver training courses arises from the fact that the Bill now enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to require drivers of specific types of vehicle to undertake training as part of obtaining their licence. Fees could be charged to recover the Secretary of State's costs for supervising such training, which includes assessments of trainers authorised to provide courses. There are also powers to cap the charges that trainers could make for those training courses. We already have similar requirements for motor cycle training, and the powers mean that they could be extended to other vehicles, in fulfilment of an important part of our road safety strategy.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: It is highly premature, but how can I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Bercow: I am always enticed by the Minister's words, as he should know by now. I simply wanted to ask him whether the regulations that he is helpfully describing will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Hill: It often seems as if the hon. Gentleman is positively obsessed by me. I am delighted to tell him that the regulations will be subject to the negative procedure.
Both the amendments to which the resolution relates were welcomed by all parties in another place, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Robert Syms: I do not believe that this matter should detain us too long because there is broad agreement on it. Clearly, utility organisations cause disruption to traffic, and the motoring public will believe that giving them an incentive to get on with the work is good.
There is a slight difference between setting a small charge to incentivise and another stealth tax. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us about the levels of charging and confirm that the utilities will not ultimately have to turn to the hard-pressed public and add substantial amounts to bills for water and electricity. As the matter must be tackled through statutory instrument, perhaps the Minister can tell us the likely timetable for its implementation.

Mr. Hill: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we have always said that we regard the powers as residual. Our first move will be to introduce provisions under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to set out penalties for overstaying in street works.
On the question about charges, it is too early to say. If we decide to proceed with lane rental, we shall want to discuss an appropriate level with highway authorities and undertakers. On the usual question about stealth taxes, I point out that each utility is subject to a regulator to prevent abuse by any monopoly power.
Let me make a minor correction: lest I be accused of misleading the House, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Transport Bill (Supplemental Programme)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [9th May] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be completed at today's sitting.
(2) If not previously concluded, the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
(3) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order—
Nos. 27 to 29, 31, 1 to 26, 30 and 32 to 235.
(4) Each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to that part of the proceedings in this Table.

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


Lords Amendments Nos. 27 to 29.
Three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Stephen Timms relating to the Transport Bill [Ways and Means] (No. 3).


Lords Amendment No. 31.
Four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion.


Remaining Lords Amendments.
Six and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.

(3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

(a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(4) The Speaker shall put forthwith—
(a) a single question on any amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(7) As soon as the House has—
(a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or
(b) disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,
the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3.

(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.

(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.

(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.

(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords proposals.

Reasons Committee

5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.

6.—(1) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), the chairman shall—
(a) first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided, and
(b) then put forthwith successively questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further questions being put.

Miscellaneous

7. The following paragraphs apply to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill.
(b) proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill, and
(c) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons (and the appointment of its chairman) and the report of the Committee.

8. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

9. The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

10.—(1) If on a day on which any of the proceedings take place a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (emergency debates) would stand over to seven o'clock—
(a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time, and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

(2) If a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day to such a day, the bringing to a conclusion of any of the proceedings on that day is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

11. No dilatory motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith.

12. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any of the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order.

The motion has been agreed through the usual channels. Its aim is to ensure consideration of the amendments made to the Bill in the other place in a logical manner, and in a way that provides time for debate on the issues that are most likely to be of concern to hon. Members. Thus we begin with part I, and especially with the two groups of amendments—Nos. 27 to 29 and No. 31—that will doubtless excite most attention. The proportion of time allocated to debate those groups reflects their significance.

However, time is also allocated to debate the other amendments that were introduced in the other place and there will be an opportunity to consider them, too. Although the vast bulk of the amendments are, as usual, of a technical, minor and consequential nature, the most important deal with, for example, the extension of concessionary fares to the disabled, bus lane enforcement, street works and quiet lanes, and relate to latter parts of the Bill. They were either introduced by the Opposition and accepted by the Government or are the subject of an all-party agreement.

The overall total of six and a quarter hours to consider the amendments and the Ways and Means resolution is appropriate and reasonable and will allow proper consideration by the House.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I do not want to detain the House for longer than is necessary because we want to get to the substance of the amendments.
The timetable was negotiated through the usual channels and there is a good reason for dealing with the most contentious items at the beginning of our debate, not least because that will cause the relevant Minister, who should be present, the least inconvenience. The relevant Minister is, of course, the Deputy Prime Minister himself, but he is not in the Chamber and has no plans to come here to discuss these matters. That raises the question whether the timetable is relevant.
The Deputy Prime Minister's absences have become something of a regular occurrence. He ducked our debates on the fuel crisis and, on Monday, on the London Underground public-private partnership. As I predicted then, he is now ducking this debate. On Monday, I drew attention to the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks made a fortnight ago:
I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or other debates…There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.—[Official Report, 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 150.]
In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was in the House a few moments ago during Prime Minister's questions, but he is not here now. His private office does not even try to offer an excuse for his absences. I thought that the Government were against truancy, but he is playing truant. The situation is getting beyond a joke.
On Monday, we welcomed the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to the Dispatch Box. He at least has responsibility for London and railways. I like dealing with him but, as I said on Monday, he is not the organ grinder of his Department.
I understand that we shall later enjoy debating with the Minister for Housing and Planning, but, with regard to transport responsibilities, he is not even the monkey—he comes from a different zoo. I have a document issued by the Cabinet Office, entitled "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", which states that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is
Minister of State (Minister for Housing and Planning).
His responsibilities, which are clearly highlighted with bullet points, are for "Housing and planning" and "Construction". By no stretch of the imagination could he be held responsible for the policies that we are likely to debate when we consider the most contentious amendments that were introduced in the other place and which relate to National Air Traffic Services.
The document states that the Deputy Prime Minister has
Responsibility for the overall direction of the Department and its agencies
but he is not here. We cannot cross-examine the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for integrated transport policy and strategic responsibility for all transport matters, because he is a Member of the other place. The Minister for Housing and Planning serves, to put it not too kindly, as the ventriloquist's dummy. I leave it to the House to decide whether the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport or the Treasury is pulling the strings on this occasion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not think that personal abuse helps to make a serious case.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not regard my comments as being particularly personally abusive, so I reject the hon.

Gentleman's charge. However, I am sure that he would be the first to agree that it is one thing to accept timetabling of such debates and another for the Deputy Prime Minister to snub the House and, of course, the British people—that we cannot accept. The Deputy Prime Minister is snubbing right hon. and hon. Members, who have a constitutional duty to express their concerns and those of their constituents about NATS privatisation to the author of that policy.
This is clearly an important debate. According to the front page of The Daily Telegraph:
Labour Whips are understood to have ordered all ministers back to London.
It goes on to report that the Whips have
offered a day off to MPs who might vote against the Government, in an attempt to head off the rebellion.
That makes me wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister is one of those who have been let off—or is he just out of control? This occasion was important enough to have dragged him from his Department to a private meeting to address Labour Members this morning, so where is he now?

Mr. David Winnick: As one who, in fact, will not be supporting the Government tonight, may I observe that the hon. Gentleman is trivialising the issue? We want to deal with the substance. We will reach our own views and vote accordingly, or abstain, as the case may be. The petty stuff that the hon. Gentleman is dishing out does not impress anyone. It certainly does not seem to impress his own side—the four Back Benchers sitting behind him, that is.

Mr. Jenkin: That intervention took up extra time needlessly.
As we discuss the motion, Members should bear in mind the fact that it relates to the Deputy Prime Minister's policy, and that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to discuss it. He—not the Minister for Housing and Planning—bears responsibility for it. This occasion is marked by yet another denial of proper scrutiny and proper accountability. I know that that does not matter to some Members, but it should matter to all of us.
Who is the Deputy Prime Minister hiding from? Who is he more frightened of? Is he hiding from the public, or just from the House—or, indeed, from some of his own Back Benchers? The Government are avoiding democratic accountability to the House.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Ministers who are present are a couple of very agreeable Members who work hard, debate matters extremely courteously and thoroughly, and give proper answers when they can. Today's unanswered question, however, is, "Where is the Deputy Prime Minister?" We do not doubt the Ministers' integrity or their quality; it is just that they do not hold the job of the man with whom we wish to debate.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. The Government shelter their Minister for Transport by appointing to that post someone from the other place, and prop up the


Secretary of State who has increasingly become a stooge Deputy Prime Minister incapable of carrying out his proper duties in the House.

Mr. Hill: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other Back Benchers wish to speak.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I agree with the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that we do not wish to delay the proceedings unnecessarily, but, as he says, there is a great deal at stake. This is an important debate, and I think that rather more time should have been provided for debate on the Lords amendments. The air traffic control set-up could jeopardise safety, if the privatisation goes ahead. It involves major issues of national security. No other country apart from Fiji has privatised its air traffic control system. I do not think that the House doubts the significance of what we will shortly debate.
I welcome the deliberations in another place, which have given the Government a window of opportunity—a chance to think again before making what is potentially a big mistake. No matter what happens in the Chamber today, that window will still exist, and I hope the Government will take advantage of it. However, although I think we should have been given more time, I do not intend to vote against the motion, and urge others not to do so either, so that we can begin the main debate as soon as possible.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) about the need to get on with the substance of the debate, but, as a signatory to the motion, I want to say a word about its significance. First, however, let me say that I find it extremely difficult to take seriously the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I can only imagine that his diatribe was intended to disguise the fact that he was the only Conservative Member who had the honesty to admit guilt about the privatisation of the railway system. All his colleagues seem to have disappeared. He talked about others hiding, but he was trying to disguise his own integrity and honesty by going off on that extraordinary tangent.
We, too, regret the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here to debate this extremely important issue.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I will not give way; I want to get on.
We acknowledge the fact that the two Ministers who carried the burden of the day in Committee are here, and I hope that they will listen carefully to the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House, including distinguished Labour Back Benchers.
The programme motion is indicative of the way in which the House can improve its consideration of legislation. As has been said, there is a consensus about

several measures in the Bill, not least those on lane rental and penalties for the way in which the now privatised utilities can hold us all to ransom. I pray in aid the chaos that has been caused in my own county, Cornwall, by the cable contractors—profit-making utilities that are nothing to do with public services in the old sense. That is why a programme motion is so helpful in concentrating on the matters about which opinion is still divided.
I acknowledge the fact that some Conservative Members are here in support of the motion, and it is helpful for us to reach agreement on the proper way to debate the issues that remain contentious. That is why it was such a lot of hot air the other night when Members said that occasionally reaching agreement on the proper way to debate such Bills was an outrageous affront to the dignity and proper responsibilities of Members of Parliament. We welcome the programme motion. More time could have been allowed, but there will be opportunities to consider the big issues, such as public safety.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hope that there will be time to clarify a very important issue of fact. Not long ago, in answer to a question about the pilots' attitude, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said—I shall be told whether I quote him wrongly—that the British Air Line Pilots Association's view did not necessarily represent that of the airline pilots. I should like the Government to clarify precisely whether or not they believe that BALPA speaks for the pilots.
My own experience is that on the 18 separate occasions that I have gone into the cockpits of either British Airways or British Midland aircraft on the Edinburgh-London run and asked the captains—they are senior captains—whether they support BALPA, the answer has always been yes in relation to such proposals.
I hope that time will be given to considering whether the proposals constitute a danger. I choose my words extremely carefully and after due consideration. Of course the Government do not mean this to happen, but I think that the proposals represent a path to possible manslaughter because, in the pilots' view, they are dangerous. The issue of possible manslaughter must be addressed because my constituents and those of every other hon. Member in the north certainly did not send us to the House to acquiesce in possible manslaughter.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is verging on tedious repetition on such issues. We heard a diatribe on Monday, and we are hearing it again now. I suppose that he has to do that because he has already issued his press release, but the truth of the matter is that the Deputy Prime Minister is a most frequent attender in the House, not least on issues such as this. The hon. Gentleman is on pretty thin ground in pursuing that particular question. I suppose that he is seeking to avoid the substance of the debate because he does not want the public to be reminded that his party is for the total sell-off of NATS—lock, stock and barrel.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) pointed out, it was my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning who took part I of the Bill—that dealing with NATS—through the Standing Committee stage. This is the


team that took the whole of the Bill, over a period of 87 hours, through Committee. This is the team that it is most appropriate be present to deal with those matters in the Chamber.
If we are talking about who is and who is not in the Chamber, where, as a number of my colleagues have asked, is the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)? After all, I thought that he was responsible for the environment, transport and the regions in the shadow Cabinet—not that he would be likely to add much punching power to the debate.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hill: No; we have heard quite enough from the hon. Gentleman.
May I persist with the boxing analogy that I drew earlier in the week? The hon. Gentleman will have to be satisfied on this occasion with both bantam and middleweight performers. That flatters him, too. I suggest that we should now get on with the serious business that is before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 81, 86, 112 to 114, 120, 125, 170 to 183 and 194. If the House agrees to any of those amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 40

TRANSFER SCHEMES MADE BY CAA

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
("() No direction to make a transfer scheme shall be given under subsection (1) before the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed.")

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Mr. Raynsford: The purpose of the three amendments is to ensure that no transfer schemes are made or approved before the first Session of the Parliament following that in which the Bill receives Royal Assent. Transfer schemes involve the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities to relevant parties in readiness for the NATS public-private partnership. That cannot be set up until those transfers have been effected. Therefore, the amendments have the effect of delaying the PPP until the next Parliament—until after the next general election.
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the Government do not think that that delaying tactic is helpful. We do not see the need for any further delay in proceeding with the establishment of the PPP. We made our first announcement of the proposal for a partial sale of NATS on 11 June 1998. That was followed by a public consultation on the proposal in October that year and a statement was made following that consultation.
There are other instances of consultation. There has been a Select Committee inquiry. The sale documentation was made available to the House, and certain parts of it to other interested parties, and was subjected to lengthy debates in Committee. There has therefore been ample time for public scrutiny of both the policy and its detail.
In addition, it has been necessary to introduce legislation to enable the partial sale of NATS to take place. There have been lively debates on the Bill in the House, in Committee and in another place. That in itself has enabled the Government's proposals to be subjected to further detailed scrutiny.
I turn to the main purposes of the PPP. There is an urgent need for investment in NATS and for the injection of new project management skills. Important investment


decisions need to be made now in respect of major projects. The ability of a strategic partner to make a meaningful contribution to those may be lost if the PPP is delayed.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister confirm that the Government now intend to put the air up for sale?

Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend waited a little while, he would hear a full explanation of the Government's policy, including our absolute commitment to maintaining full safety in all United Kingdom air traffic services. I hope that he will form a proper and considered judgment when he has heard all the arguments.
There have already been delays in introducing new technology at the Swanwick centre, and there is a pressing need for the contribution from the strategic partner both here and at the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. NATS has an excellent reputation and record on safety, but it would benefit from a strengthening of its capabilities in the introduction of new technology. A delay in the introduction of the PPP, which the amendments would cause, could jeopardise the prospects for both centres.
Moreover, further delay and uncertainty will not be helpful to NATS or its staff, who have had to live with uncertainty for far too long. The previous Administration started questioning the future of NATS some years ago. We have tried to put a stop to that uncertainty by making an early announcement on the PPP. To add further delay now would be unfair to NATS staff, and could jeopardise the urgent need to recruit more air traffic controllers.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I ask this question because I would genuinely like to know the Government's latest view on the matter. My hon. Friend has rightly reminded us that the new en-route centre at Swanwick is well behind schedule. As he will know better than me, although development of the centre is NATS' responsibility, all the software, hardware and equipment—which we hope will be a quantum advance in air traffic control—are the responsibility of the private sector, including the main private contractor. How does he apportion blame for the delay between the private contractor and National Air Traffic Services? Is it still the Government's view that the centre will come on stream not this winter but next winter, and that, when it does, it will indeed be a quantum advance in air traffic control?

Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend has studied this matter carefully because, if I may remind him, he was the Minister who, on 11 June 1998, made the statement to the House on the Government's decision to proceed with the public-private partnership. At that stage, he acknowledged the fact that there was a need for a partnership both to secure investment to develop services and to mobilise private sector resources.
My right hon. Friend said on 11 June 1998—and I entirely agree with the position that he took at that time—
Our preference is that 49 per cent. of the shares, and a golden share, are held by the Government; and 51 per cent. by private investors including employees.—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]

That is exactly the model with which the Government are currently proceeding. The logic that led my right hon. Friend to that conclusion remains the logic that has led the Government to the current proposals.
As for Swanwick, we are five years behind schedule and have over-expenditure of several hundred million pounds. That is not a cause for congratulation. It is essential that we have in place a proper management structure that can ensure that, in future, procurement of the necessary information and other technology to provide services to guarantee effective and safe air traffic control systems is handled better than it has been.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I would like to finish my reply to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang).
Whatever the merits or failures of individual contractors, ultimately it is the responsibility of the commissioning body to ensure that it gets the brief right and introduces the appropriate technology and systems on time and on budget. We believe that we need to strengthen national air traffic controls with the new arrangement of a public-private partnership to ensure that new technology is commissioned on time and on budget, rather than to repeat the rather unhappy experience that we have had at Swanwick. It is equally important to ensure that the new Prestwick centre goes ahead. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh and others who represent Scottish constituencies are particularly keen to see that happen.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Before the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) intervened, the Minister was saying that the Lords amendment that we are discussing was unfair to NATS staff. Can he tell us, therefore, why the NATS staff whom I and other hon. Members have met support the amendment?

Mr. Raynsford: Some NATS staff probably do support the amendment, but I was making the point that prolonging the continuing uncertainty about the future of NATS, which would be the effect of the amendment, would not create a climate of confidence in the future. It would certainly not be in the interests of recruiting new staff. NATS and others have made the point forcefully that there is an urgent need to recruit new air traffic controllers. I believe that it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the people doing that hugely important job can have the confidence to look ahead and know the framework in which they will be expected to operate.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not a question of some NATS staff; it is a question of the considered view over many briefings


of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists and the British Air Line Pilots Association. In particular, why have Ministers been unable to persuade the IPMS on the issue of the willingness of the PPP to maintain public interest services, notably to general aviation users, which are uneconomic but essential for safety reasons?

Mr. Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that it is not the Government's responsibility to ensure the adherence of every particular body to the proposals. It is their responsibility to take a view on this. I cannot answer for the decision of the IPMS, but I can assert firmly that the Government have made it absolutely clear from the outset that the safety of air traffic control systems in this country is the top priority. We have said it again and again and, in order to show our bona fides, we have accepted amendments that we will be debating later this evening which give effect to that by putting it clearly and unambiguously in the Bill.
Safety will be paramount. It will be the No. 1 priority under the new proposal. I can assure all right hon. and hon. Members of that because there has been a certain amount of misinformation on the subject from people who have suggested that safety might be compromised.

Mr. John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way in a moment, but first I should like to make this absolutely clear to the House, because there has been some uncertainty: Safety will be the No. 1 priority. The Government are absolutely committed to the maintenance of the safest possible air traffic control system. We are also committed to ensuring that it is a modern, up-to-date and efficient system which is able to cope with the many pressures that it will face in the years ahead as traffic increases.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend has stated that part of the motivation for the proposal is to provide security for the staff and to respond to their concerns. Has he visited the air traffic control centre in West Drayton in my constituency in the past two years? I may have missed his visit. Has he consulted the staff? If he has not, why not ballot the staff and ask them for their views on the issue? Their view is very clear. The unions involved have consulted their members and made it clear that they are opposed to the Government's proposals.

Mr. Raynsford: I have not visited the air traffic control centre at West Drayton, but my ministerial colleagues have. We have listened very carefully indeed to the views that have been expressed by all interested parties. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that a range of different parties all have a view on the matter. The Government clearly have to take a balanced view in the light of the evidence and, above all, in the national interest. It is our considered view that the necessary investment to secure an effective future service of air traffic control systems in this country is best served by a public-private partnership which can bring in the benefits of additional private sector investment and private sector

project management expertise, while at the same time ensuring the most rigorous safety regime which, as I have already made it clear to the House, is the No. 1 priority.

Mr. David Winnick: Given that we are now seeing the results of the Tory privatisation of the railways, does it really make sense at this time to go for the semi-privatisation of a public service? That is what some people call the Government's proposed public-private partnership. I should have thought that the Lords' decision would have encouraged Ministers to reflect and seriously reconsider the proposal.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend airs understandable and justifiable concerns about safety on the railways, which many of us share. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that effective action is taken to deal with the problems, which have been much in evidence. However, the model that we propose for the NATS public-private partnership is very different from the privatisation model adopted for the railways.
These are very important issues. Specifically, under the model that we propose, the private sector will be invited to supply investment and project management skills. They will be hugely important in the procurement of efficient new IT systems to enable the service to operate as we want it to in the future. I have already explained why that is so vital.
However, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill ensures that the whole issue of safety remains in the public sector. The Civil Aviation Authority will retain the primary responsibility for safety and will set the safety standards. Safety will remain its No. 1 priority, as the Bill makes clear. That is the difference between the framework that we propose and that adopted for the privatisation of the railways.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the framework proposed in the Bill is different, and that it has been designed to take account of the special needs involved in providing safe and efficient air traffic control systems. The framework will ensure that we can expand the system to meet changing pressures and needs, while at the same time guaranteeing the maintenance of the safest service possible. That has always been our No. 1 priority.
I understand that in another place a precedent was cited for delaying the implementation of transfer provisions. In 1982, during proceedings on the Telecommunications Bill, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that neither the transfer of assets and obligations to the new company nor the issue of shares to the public would take place before the general election that was coming up.
There is, however, a major difference between the British Telecom case and NATS. The former was a flotation in which the Government were selling off their interest in the business in its entirety.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The British Telecom arrangement would nowadays be called, in modern parlance, a public-private partnership. Only 51 per cent. of shares were sold, with the Government retaining 49 per cent. for a considerable time.

Mr. Raynsford: I am perfectly happy to stand corrected on that point, but it was the intention of the then


Government to dispose of their entire holding, and British Telecom is now an entirely privatised utility. That is not the Government's intention with regard to NATS. As the hon. Gentleman will know from our lengthy and enjoyable debates in Committee, the Government intend to retain a significant shareholding in NATS at all times. That difference is very important.
In the case of the PPP, the Government are proposing to dispose of a proportion of our interest in NATS, but we will retain a substantial stake to ensure that the public interest remains protected.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: That very substantial interest may amount to only 25 per cent. Will my hon. Friend explain that? Moreover, is not the crucial difference between the privatisation of British Telecom and the Government's proposals with regard to NATS that these proposals were never mentioned in the 1987 Labour manifesto?

Mr. Raynsford: First, as my hon. Friend will have noted, the Bill sets the level of Government shareholding initially at 49 per cent. The Bill allows for that to be reduced if it is felt appropriate to do so, through dilution, to a figure no lower than 25 per cent. The purpose of that was made very clear in Committee and right hon. and hon. Members who were there will understand the reason. We have frequently made the point that air traffic control systems in Europe will change dramatically in the years ahead. We will inevitably see a consolidation. We will see a reduction from the large number of current air traffic control centres to probably only a handful.
We want to ensure that NATS is in a strong position so that it can play a leading role in the process of consolidation. There may well be, as part of that process, a case for some further disposal of shares to enlarge the number of interested parties. However, the Government have been clear that they will always retain a minimum of 25 per cent. of shares, which is the sufficient shareholding to ensure that they are capable of blocking any activities that could threaten the whole basis of the operation. That is the framework, and that is why the figures of 49 per cent. and 25 per cent. appear in the Bill.
My hon. Friend's second point was about the manifesto. He will be aware that the Prime Minister made a clear commitment in our manifesto. He said:
We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues … how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need.
That is a pretty clear indication that we were ready to consider public-private partnerships in relation to transport services.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: No, the hon. Gentleman had better listen to this, because he will not necessarily like it.
Let us compare that commitment with the Conservative proposals. The previous Government proposed the total privatisation of air traffic control services without having made any such proposal in their election manifesto. It is sheer cant for the Conservative party to claim that there

is anything wrong with bringing forward a proposal without its having previously been in the election manifesto. That was how they behaved when they were in Government.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: Of course I will—if the hon. Gentleman wants to come back on that point, he is welcome to.

Mr. Jenkin: The Labour party manifesto can be accused of being a little misleading, while ours was perfectly clear. The Labour manifesto says, under "Shipping and Aviation":
The guiding objectives of our aviation strategy will be fair competition, safety and environmental standards. We want all British carriers to be able to compete fairly in the interests of consumers.
I do not think that anyone reading that will have got the impression that the sale of National Air Traffic Services was on the agenda. The hon. Gentleman should at least admit that this was a little thin.

Mr. Raynsford: I have quoted directly from the Prime Minister's words in the Labour party manifesto. He made it perfectly clear that public-private partnerships to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need would be pursued at every turn. That, in my view, is a clear commitment to consider such options. We considered them but had not reached conclusions at the time of the manifesto. However, when we were in government we concluded that an appropriate public-private partnership was the right way forward. That was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh in a statement to the House in June 1998, and we stick by that commitment.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister now quote directly from the Labour party conference, when our spokesperson gave a commitment that we would not be selling off the air?

Mr. Raynsford: I recall very well the Labour party conference endorsing our public-private partnership recently. That is a clear commitment by our party conference, and the Government are acting in line with it.

Sir Norman Fowler: Just for information, what did the phrase "the air is not for sale" mean?

Mr. Raynsford: I am not sure what it means. It is one of those phrases that people use glibly and repeat. However, there is an absolute commitment on the part of the Government to ensure that there will be a safe system for air traffic control. The public sector will continue to oversee the safety issue through the Civil Aviation Authority, which will remain in public ownership; and the public-private sector partnership will be there for the purpose that I have outlined—to bring in the necessary finance and new management expertise.
This is a genuine partnership, by strong contrast with the Conservative party's view that total privatisation is the preferred option. We reject that option. We have a way


forward that guarantees the improved service that is so vital for the future and unquestionably guarantees public scrutiny and control of the safety issue, which is equally vital for the future.

Mr. Dalyell: If there is to be monitoring, the self-regulation group will require a huge increase in human resources to regulate all NATS activities. As I understand it, 17 inspectors are employed for air traffic control and 10 for engineering. NATS employs 1,800 controllers and 1,300 engineers. How is regulation to be effected in terms of human resources?

Mr. Raynsford: We have made it clear on many occasions, and I am happy to give a further commitment now, that the Government will ensure that resources are available to maintain the safe system that we are committed to achieving. We will not allow human resource levels to fall below those that we regard as appropriate to meet the objectives.

Mr. Michael Moore: I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), what plans there were to alter the number of safety inspectors after privatisation. He replied:
The Air Traffic Services Standards Department … employs 27 inspectors dealing directly with operational safety issues…The CAA currently has no intention to alter the number of inspectors as a result of the completion of the National Air Traffic Services Public Private Partnership.—[Official Report, 10 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 419W.]
How can that give the public confidence?

Mr. Raynsford: I think that the public would want the confidence of knowing that the Government are committed to ensuring that manpower resources will be sufficient to maintain appropriate standards. If the CAA were to come to Government seeking additional resources, its application would be examined extremely carefully and sympathetically. However, the hon. Gentleman is referring to something quite different—that is, the current basis for staffing expectations. That does not relate to concerns about the adequacy of the staff to do the job. I have given the answer, and I hold by it.
Perhaps not sufficient attention has been given to the suggestion made by the other place that it would be appropriate for it to pass amendments that would prevent the Government from implementing certain provisions in the Bill until the next Parliament. It is my view and that of the Government that it would be entirely inappropriate for such amendments to appear in the Bill. It is even more inappropriate for such amendments to be proposed by a body which has not been subject to the judgment of the electorate. It is for the elected Government to determine the speed at which they can implement their legislation. Were the proposals of the other place to remain in the Bill—I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider this carefully—we would be straying into dangerous constitutional territory, and creating a precedent that could be used again and again to damage the Government's good intentions. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to remember that when they consider how they will be voting at the end of the debate.
There are some in another place who have argued that we do not have a mandate from the people to pursue our proposals for NATS. That is rich, coming from a Chamber which has never been tested by the electorate. We look to that Chamber to act as a revising body, not as a body that dictates when Government legislation can or cannot be implemented.
I move on to the public interest. Under the Bill's provisions, the public will be protected through a range of measures, including the licensing regime, the strategic partnership agreement, the special share and the powers of direction. As all the necessary public protections are in place, no additional benefits for the public interest will be gained by delay. However, there will be considerable detriment. The PPP was included as a commitment in the White Paper on integrated transport, which was published in 1998. The focus of the White Paper was on transport safety and improvement of current regulatory systems. Implementing the PPP will make a positive contribution to safety by effecting a complete separation between safety regulation and service provision. I see no sense in delaying the split, which has overwhelming support from all those who have looked seriously at the issue, including the Select Committee.
The Bill contains several provisions that are important in their own right, including those that subject NATS to economic regulation irrespective of when the PPP is completed. The amendments would delay the PPP and the introduction of an improved incentive-based system of economic regulation, which is intended to benefit users.
I hope that I have explained why the Government are unable to accept the amendments.

Ms Sandra Osborne: If the amendments were agreed to, would my hon. Friend see any prospect of the Government changing their mind and considering, for example, a trust? Would he expect Labour policy on NATS to change at the general election?

Mr. Raynsford: We have considered a range of options and models proposed by various parties. We have also considered options proposed in other countries, notably the NAVCAN system in Canada. We fully understand that there are advocates of those systems, but we have concluded that the public-private partnership set out in the Bill is the right way forward. We believe it essential to proceed with it. My hon. Friend has been a forceful advocate of the new provision and investment in her own constituency which will guarantee the two-centre strategy. We wholly endorse that, and the PPP will make possible the investment necessary to ensure that we take forward that commitment and have effective operations at Swanwick and Prestwick. That is our commitment, and I am sure that the House will, on reflection, recognise that it is the right way forward. I urge the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: Now that I have seen the difficulty with which the Minister defended this proposal. I understand why the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions did not want to be here. The House is entitled to express concern at the fact that we do not have at the Dispatch Box a Minister who has ever visited the London air traffic control centre or Swanwick or met air traffic controllers. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Minister, is playing the role of paid counsel rather than that of a policy-making Minister. That is unsatisfactory.
I speak with absolute authority over Conservative transport policy. [Interruption.] That may invite a wry smile from the Minister, but there is a clear contrast between his position and mine. I am a member of the shadow Cabinet, and the Secretary of State is the only Minister in his Department who is a fully fledged Cabinet Minister. He should have been here to discuss this matter.
I should pick up one minor point. I do not accept that the split will be unable to go ahead if the amendment is accepted. The operational split could certainly go ahead, although the split of ownership admittedly would not.
There is no need to rehearse in detail all the arguments against the proposed botched privatisation. Although Ministers pretend that it is something other than privatisation, it compels businesses to seek strategic partnerships that might result in a conflict of interest. Having heard a debate for the past month or so on the unnecessary complexity of a previous privatisation, I find it strange that the Government should inflict on us a privatisation with a structure that is so complex. That structure leaves open the question of who is responsible, as the management have a shareholding of only 5 per cent., the strategic partner has a shareholding of 46 per cent. and the Government hold the biggest shareholding of all. When push comes to shove and there is a fundamental disagreement between the Government and the strategic partner, how will that break down? It is not obvious, as there is no clear chain of command.
This privatisation is being delivered with assurances that cannot be kept. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) pointed out that the assurance that the Government will constantly retain 46 per cent. of the shares is not in the Bill. Clause 48 offers the possibility of a reduction in the Government's shareholding to 25 per cent. and includes a Henry VIII clause, as that 25 per cent. can be altered by a simple order laid before the House, which can now be voted through by a paper ballot in the No Lobby on a Wednesday afternoon, separately from a proper debate on the issue. The Bill puts absolute power in the hands of the Government, subject to only one tiny parliamentary check, so that they can sell 100 per pent. of the business if they wish. As a result of that Henry VIII clause, nothing in the Bill is immutable.
There is also the question of the golden share, which is supposed to be of great comfort. When the Bill was in Committee, the Minister for Housing and Planning scoffed when I pointed out that BAA's golden share was subject to infraction proceedings. On 11 October, the European Commission issued a notice that stated:
Commission decides to refer UK to Court concerning BAA.
The Commission is taking a stage further infraction proceedings against the UK concerning the golden share held in BAA. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments again, but it is clear from legal advice to the Commission that is freely available to Ministers that the golden share will not stand the test of a judgment by the European Court of Justice, so that is another assurance that cannot be delivered.
We have heard a lot about investment, but the preparation for privatisation has been heralded by a move to impose on the business an RPI minus formula that requires cuts in prospective capital investment. The NATS

management response to the economic regulation group's second consultation paper points out that the Civil Aviation Authority's proposal in that paper requires
savings of between 16 per cent. and 29 per cent. in capital expenditure.
The privatisation will be very strange, as it will be the first privatisation to have required cuts in capital expenditure to get going. Every other privatisation has been premised on the prospect of substantially increased capital expenditure. However, we have seen the matter in black and white, as set out by the hand of NATS management.
Finally, there has been discussion of the continued assurances that the Government are giving about the two-centre strategy for the United Kingdom. There must be uncertainty about that, as we have heard in the background that NATS management have a vision of a four or five centre strategy for the whole of Europe. One wonders why the Prestwick investment has been constantly delayed and never put on the table. The Government will not be in a position to deliver their current assurance, even though they are saying that it is in the plans. However, once the business is in the private sector, we must ask whether they will be able to deliver their assurance, even if they continue to hold 46 per cent. of the shares.

Ms Osborne: That is exactly why I asked the Government to amend the Bill to ensure that the new Scottish centre would go ahead, but I cannot cast any light on previous delays, which were caused by the Conservative Government calling into question the two-centre strategy and introducing a vastly expensive and unworkable private finance initiative.

5 pm

Mr. Jenkin: Well, at least we had a PFI. The Government scrapped the PFI and now we are on a wing and a prayer. The hon. Lady will have to believe the promise of an industry in the private sector. She must explain that to her electors.
Safety is a constant refrain in this debate. I wish to place it on record that I have 100 per cent. faith in the safety regime of NATS and the way in which it is supervised by the Civil Aviation Authority. I do not believe that we will face the difficulties caused by the change in working practices and relationships as occurred on the railways because the safety culture in aviation is much stronger than it ever was on the railways.
Concerns about safety bring up questions of public and staff confidence. Whatever the merits of privatisation, this privatisation is certainly the wrong scheme. I do not know whether we will include privatisation of air traffic services in our next manifesto. I say that genuinely and openly. The promotion of solutions that do not command public confidence is a serious matter, and one that should affect the Government at this stage. I give the Government an absolute assurance. Whatever our policy is for air traffic control, it will be in our manifesto. We will be explicit.

Mr. Raynsford: It was not in 1992.

Mr. Jenkin: Well, it was in 1997, when we planned to carry out the privatisation. To accuse us of not including in our manifesto something that we subsequently did not


do is not a strong point, if I may say so. The fact is that we included privatisation of air traffic services in our 1997 manifesto, and it is necessary to include a policy of such importance in one's manifesto.
We may well include the trust proposal in our manifesto. It seems to be an option that will provide the disciplines of private sector management without the alarm that would be caused by creating a profit-making company.

Mr. Raynsford: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: If the Minister wants to make fun of me for an apparent U-turn, let him go ahead, but I believe that the issues are much too serious to make fun of.

Mr. Raynsford: I have no intention of making fun of the hon. Gentleman or of indulging in the cheap and personal jibes that he has made such a hallmark of his speeches this evening. The point that I was making was that the criticism from the Conservatives that our 1997 manifesto did not contain an explicit policy commitment in relation to NATS comes a bit rich from a party that proposed the privatisation of NATS during the 1992–97 Parliament without having made any commitment in its 1992 manifesto. What it put in its 1997 manifesto is a different matter. The electorate certainly took a pretty dim view of the Conservative party's 1997 election manifesto.

Mr. Jenkin: That is a pretty double-edged sword. First, the Minister accuses us of not doing something that was not in our 1992 manifesto and then takes credit for the fact that we were beaten in the last general election, when privatisation was in our manifesto. Now, he proposes the privatisation of NATS when it was not in his manifesto.
I will come now to some of the comments that have been made. Fundamentally, these amendments are about only one argument—democratic accountability. It is always an exquisite irony—one that the hon. Gentleman seems unable to stomach—when the other place delivers a rebuke to this elected House about our democratic duties. The amendments offer just such a rebuke.
At the 1996 Labour party conference, the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, then Labour's Transport spokesman, proclaimed to ecstatic Labour cheers:
Labour will do everything we can to block this sell-off. Our air is not for sale.
There is not much cheering at present.
Later that month, the right hon. Gentleman issued a press release stating that the scheme
will undermine confidence in Air Traffic Control…Labour is determined to safeguard quality public service. We shall raise this in the Commons and make it a General Election issue.
Why did Labour not make it a general election issue? Because Labour had a covert plan to privatise air traffic control.
In February 1997, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), now a member of the Government, but then a shadow Transport Minister, said:
I would like to confirm that the Labour Party are completely opposed to the privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services and under a Labour Government they will remain in the public sector.
Nothing could have been clearer than that. There was nothing to suggest privatisation in the election manifesto.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend has alluded—entirely appropriately—to the views of the

hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). Does my hon. Friend believe that the hon. Gentleman changed his mind on the subject before or after he was appointed Deputy Chief Whip?

Mr. Jenkin: Those are murky matters; they are best left to individual hon. Gentlemen and their shaving mirrors.
During the general election campaign, a little skirmish took place on this matter. A Labour spokesman said:
What Andrew Smith said last October was criticism of the particular scheme offered by the government. John Prescott, Margaret Beckett and Andrew Smith have made clear that we don't rule out looking at the privatisation of air traffic control.
Will the Minister tell me where Labour made it clear that they were looking at the privatisation of air traffic control? I suppose he—

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond, but seems reluctant to hear the answer.
I have already quoted the Prime Minister's comments in our manifesto. On 4 April 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear that the Government would consider a scheme for the privatisation of NATS; his remarks were reported in The Times.

Mr. Jenkins: One quote in one newspaper hardly constitutes a mandate. What is significant is the comment made by the Prime Minister when he was fighting the previous general election as Leader of the Opposition. In typically opaque fashion, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We would have to review this sale because we inherited it from the Conservatives.
I do not follow the syntax of that sentence, but it confirms just how double-dealing and two-faced new Labour can be; it certainly does not constitute a mandate for the privatisation that we are considering today.
We are now offered the choice of deferral of the proposed sale. The Conservatives set a precedent for such a deferral: the idea for the privatisation of British Telecom germinated during the 1979–83 Parliament, but the Conservative Government knew that they lacked a mandate for such a privatisation. The Minister has already quoted from a debate that took place at that time. So it was a case of "not in our manifesto, no sale."
As Lord Brabazon of Tara pointed out in the other place, that view appears to be reflected by the Deputy Prime Minister in connection with the sale of Railtrack. Last month he told the House of Commons:
In fact, our argument was that the then Government waited to sell British Telecom until after the election, so they could have done the same with Railtrack.—[Official Report, 24 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 151.]
What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and if the previous Government could have done it with Railtrack, the present Government could certainly do it with National Air Traffic Services.
This sale is every bit as controversial as that of Railtrack—possibly more so, as the election of the present Government was preceded by such explicit denials that such a sale could possibly take place.
This proposal should appear in a manifesto that wins the approval of electors before it goes ahead. The other place is right to make us think again about this matter,


and it has every right to do so. After all, it was the Labour leader in the other place, Baroness Jay, who said that, following the Government's reforms of the upper House, it
will be able to speak with more authority…A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the Government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account.
She clearly did not envisage that Ministers would stand up at the Dispatch Box in this place and continue to demand fealty from the House of Lords as though it was some kind of patsy to be put back in its box at the first opportunity.
I wholeheartedly agree with Baroness Jay's comments, and I urge the House to reject the Government's motion.

Dr. Strang: I, too, oppose the Government's motion.
There are some very good practical reasons, some of which the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned, for delaying the transfer. As was pointed out, National Air Traffic Services is facing two major challenges at present. The first is to get Swanwick—the new en-route centre near Southampton—into action as soon as possible, and senior management time should be devoted to that challenge. The second is to press ahead with the new Scottish centre.
The private finance initiative was initially proposed by the Conservatives, and for some time we continued to try to make it work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) that it would have been a mistake. It is a mistake, in air traffic control, for the whole centre, let alone the software and hardware, to be owned by one company while the controllers are employed by someone else, as would apply under PFI.
Therefore, top management in NATS should be preoccupied with getting on with bringing Swanwick on stream and getting ahead with the new Scottish centre, and they should not be diverted, at this of all times, by this complex privatisation. It is indeed complex and, as we all know, has been described by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs as the worst of all options.
In addition, if the measure is driven by financial considerations—as we know it is—it does not make sense to sell off Swanwick when the whole place could have been operational in about a year's time. I emphasise that I am against privatising at any time but I ask the House to consider the following. Suppose that we are in the business of maximising capital receipts to get the best deal from the privatisation for the country and the Government. After all the trauma and all the problems, and whoever is to blame, whether NATS or the private sector—I am inclined to believe that both must accept some responsibility—if the Swanwick centre is going to be operational in the next year or so, surely it is sensible to wait until then before seeking a capital receipt for it.
On that financial issue, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning for recalling what the Government were saying on the subject just before I left the Administration in July 1998. I have no intention of breaching any of the confidential discussions that took place between Ministers before I left the Administration

and, as I have said time and again, I accept complete responsibility for any answers that I gave or anything that I said on the issue, but let me place the matter in context. My hon. Friend will recall that the announcement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his comprehensive spending review; that was the significant thing. Of course, as the then Minister of Transport, it fell to me to set out, as I did in a written answer, that the Government would consult. I emphasised—I remember the words vividly—that we were going to consult not just on the practicality, but on the principle behind the proposal.
5.15 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) took over from me as the Minister of Transport, but the post was no longer a Cabinet position. He duly published a consultation document that made it clear that the Government were examining alternatives. It was a genuine consultation and he made it clear that other options would be considered. However, the announcement was finally made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who had taken over as Minister of Transport, and, as we were rightly reminded, it was made on the last sitting day in July 1999. Governments tend to make a clutch of important announcements on the last day before the recess, but—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—I think that she had to be summoned to the House to respond to a private notice question from the Opposition.
The history of the proposal is in the public domain, but the important point is that we all know that it has been driven by financial considerations. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning quoted what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the general election campaign. That shows that the proposal is all about finance. It is about the so-called "black hole" in the finances that the Labour Government inherited from the Conservative party's programme. It is important to understand that, for the Government, this proposal has been driven by financial considerations. There was the prospect of significant capital receipts and the Government wanted borrowing to be transferred from the public to the private sector.
NATS is profitable, and the Government still had the option of the Post Office solution if they wanted to choose it. Many people find it hard to understand how they accepted that option for the Post Office, but not for NATS.
We know that the proposal has been made for financial and not for safety reasons, and there is no point running away from the safety issue. To put it briefly, privatising NATS is not like privatising an airline. Make no mistake about it: the Government fully intend that the so-called private strategic partner will have complete strategic control of the service. With a privatised airline, such as British Airways, the private owners can maximise profits for their shareholders by improving the service. They can increase the frequency of the service, make it more reliable and improve comfort and in-house catering. That option does not exist for air traffic control. All that air traffic controllers do is keep planes apart and our skies safe. The only way a new private owner can obtain a


higher return on the capital deployed and make even more profit from the service for private shareholders than it is making in the public sector is to cut costs.
That is why there is a concern that—not immediately, but in the long run—the conflict between private profit, which means driving down costs, and safety standards could put safety in jeopardy. If anyone is any doubt about that, I remind the House of what has emerged. In preparing for privatisation, the Civil Aviation Authority has proposed major cuts in NATS' prices. That information was leaked over the summer, and NATS said that that would
impose major operational difficulties on the business. NATS is not a standard utility—safety in the ATC industry is undoubtedly of a different order of importance. One simple distinction is that manning levels are absolutely critical to ATC safety and service delivery, whereas that is not nearly so true in other utilities.
That is what the management of NATS—probably the safest air traffic control system in the world—is saying about the threat of privatisation and the specific, complex partial privatisation scheme proposed by the Government. It will not wash to say that safety is not an issue, because it is, and that is why the scheme is opposed by airline pilots, air traffic controllers and the British people. On safety, let us not forget that, as far as the airlines are concerned, the crucial dialogue is between the airline pilot and the air traffic controller on the ground.
As for regulations in the public sector, the standards achieved by NATS are substantially higher than those laid down by the CAA as regulator. Everyone in the industry believes that if privatisation takes place, NATS standards will initially continue to be higher than those laid down by the regulator, who will remain in the public sector, but that, over time, they will inevitably come down to the level set by the independent regulator. That regulator will be responsible not just for NATS but for private airports and other groups that are in the business of air traffic management and control, although NATS is, of course, dominant. All the onward traffic—every plane in our air space—has to go through NATS. We should not get the exaggerated idea that because private airports are able to manage their inflow of planes, that is comparable to the national job that our nationalised, and therefore publicly owned, air traffic control does for this country.
Safety is an issue, but so is national security, and I believe that that is why no other country—certainly no major European country—has taken this approach. I have been told that the only country with a privatised air traffic control service is Fiji. The United States has not privatised its service because national security is involved. It is not just civil planes that have to be managed, but military planes—Royal Air Force planes and other military planes—that are based in this country. Our system is a model for Europe, if not the world. We manage to get RAF controllers and NATS civilian controllers to co-operate by working from the same premises. I, like most people, believe that that co-operation is best facilitated by having NATS and RAF controllers in the public sector.
There are other national security issues. What if there is a crisis? I do not want to be overdramatic, but we have to accept that we are planning for the long term. We are not merely concerned with what is going to happen in the first two or three years of privatisation. If we had information that a plane was coming into the country that had been hijacked or was carrying—dare I say it—a bomb

or a substance that could be a threat to the civilian population, our Government, security services, police and military would have to take complete control and act as one with the air traffic control system. That is undoubtedly best facilitated by retaining NATS in the public sector.
We cannot rule out the possibility—we dealt with this in the Standing Committee—that the privatised company will eventually come under foreign ownership. The Minister confirmed that the Bill provides for the public stake in NATS to fall to 25 per cent., which means that more than 60 per cent.—two thirds—of the service will be owned by the private sector. The foreign-owned company could be based in a country where, in the event of a crisis in the middle east, the population and the Government might support, to put it crudely, a different side to that supported by the British Government. In such a situation, there could be a conflict of interest between the directions given by the Secretary of State, who has powers in the Bill to direct the new privatised air traffic control system, and the management—the foreign ownership—of the company.
We cannot run away from those issues. We are not legislating on a minor or inconsequential matter. We are not passing legislation that will have an effect just for the next two or three years. If the proposal goes through, the worry is that, in the long term, our people will pay a heavy price.

Mr. Jenkin: I did not refer to the threat of hostile foreign ownership in my speech, but the right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point on national security. Does he agree that the weak golden share provisions are not sufficient to withstand that threat? We would certainly not countenance any transfer to the private sector unless the golden-share provisions could be made absolutely watertight, which means insulating them from any threat from European Community law.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; that is an important point. The Government would argue that we could rely on the golden share.

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend indicates that that is not true; I withdraw my comment. I thought that there was some protection. Presumably, he is saying that there is no protection. The golden share relates to the articles of the new privatised company.

Mr. Raynsford: I was shaking my head because I was disagreeing with the interpretation of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who implied that only the golden share provided the security. As my right hon. Friend will know, having studied the Bill carefully and been a member of the Standing Committee, specific clauses—clauses 86 and 87, I think—give the Secretary of State very clear powers to intervene in a national emergency to safeguard national interests. That is the proper safeguard.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but that is a tangential point. Who is to say that there would be such intervention if the private company, which may be owned initially by some British-based company—I think


that a United States-based company is also in the frame now that the Government have got the list of potential private owners down to three—were sold to, for example, a Hong Kong-based company? Frankly, the Government of the day would not regard that as an emergency. The sale would go through and the worry would be over any subsequent national emergency.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a further, perhaps even more worrying, dimension? It is possible that part of NATS could be acquired not just by a foreign company but a company in the public ownership of a foreign country. Who is to say—I look forward to the response—that we can guarantee that another country's foreign policy will be at one with our own?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He will understand if I do not go too far down that road, although he enables me to make this point: there is all this talk about privatisation helping us to facilitate European co-operation, almost implying that the new privatised air traffic control system will take over some of the European systems, but does anyone believe that the French will privatise their air traffic control system or that a private British air traffic control company will be allowed to buy the nationalised air traffic control system in France? No one believes that France is at all likely—certainly not in my life time—to privatise its air traffic control system. The danger is the reverse.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister's reaction to the right hon. Gentleman's comments cannot stand uncorrected. The provisions that the Minister says give the Secretary of State powers to intervene in a national emergency are not insulated from any European Community injunction either. The Government insist that the provisions are so insulated, but they will carry on losing their cases in the European Court of Justice on those matters, just as they have in the past.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will recall some fun in Committee at the expense of his Euro-scepticism, but he is right that the golden share is threatened by the European Union. I have correspondence with the appropriate Treasury Minister confirming that. One only has to read Lord Lawson's book on the golden share of the British National Oil Corporation to understand that such provision is a very tenuous line of defence. That is what history shows—and it is even more the case for NATS privatisation given the statements that are emanating from the European Commission, which has plans for Europeanisation of air space. That strengthens the case for ensuring that the service provider is under the Government's complete control. The only way to do that is to retain it in public ownership.
I shall conclude, because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. Let me be up-front: I support the amendment because I believe that delay means that privatisation will disappear. I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, whose constituency includes Prestwick, that I distinguish between the Government's policy and the Labour party's manifesto for the next general election. I do not believe that the Labour party will fight the next

election campaign on a policy of privatising our air traffic control system. The amendment would prevent the Government from selling off any equity in our air traffic control system before the general election. That would have the effect of preventing a future Labour Government from selling our air traffic control.

Mr. Moore: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who has again passionately presented the important arguments against privatisation from his perspective. From Second Reading last December and throughout the Bill's passage through the Commons, Liberal Democrat Members have opposed the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. Our colleagues in another place continued that vigorous opposition. Like the right hon. Gentleman, our preferred option is the abandonment of privatisation and the creation of a trust or an independent publicly owned company. However, we acknowledge that delay is currently the only option, and we believe that a virtue can be made of that.
We share the right hon. Gentleman's view that delay greatly enhances the chances of the whole process falling through. Regardless of that, there should be a delay not least because privatisation did not appear in the Labour party's manifesto at the last election. I did not nick the Enigma code-breaking machine, but one would need to have possessed it to interpret the Prime Minister's introduction to the manifesto as meaning that air traffic control would be privatised. Thousands of others took a similar view. To put it bluntly, we were told that our air was not for sale. More fool us for believing that.
NOP conducted a recent poll on behalf of a leading trade union, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. It showed that 76 per cent. of the public remain opposed to a sale of air traffic control, and only 14 per cent. support the proposals. That says everything we need to know about wider concerns outside the Chamber.
As we have debated the privatisation at length in the Chamber, in Committee and in another place, we have gleaned more and more details of what will happen under privatisation. Those details have come out grudgingly or through leaks, rather than through Government openness. We have mounting anxieties about the way in which NATS will be regulated after privatisation. There are serious questions about the suitability of some of the strategic partners who have come forward for consideration.
At the outset, the Minister raised an issue that was a feature of broadcasts outside the House earlier today. He made it almost a point of principle that sending back the Bill would be an insult to another place. He said that the popular will should prevail. The popular will, as reflected in opinion polls, does not support the measure. Their Lordships rightly pointed out that there was no manifesto commitment to privatisation. However, the most important point is that this Government have done more than any other in the past 50 years to reshape the other place in a manner that suits their purposes. There is, therefore, a sweet irony in the fact that the other place is kicking stuff back for us to reconsider.
At the heart of this debate is the investment requirement of NATS, which must be satisfied if the paramount objective of ensuring safety in our skies is to be


maintained. Liberal Democrats have consistently accepted that investment is required, but we continue to deny that privatisation is the only way to achieve that. Our central concern, and that of many people throughout the country, is that privatisation could have a dangerous impact on safety.

Mr. Dalyell: My life, the hon. Gentleman's, and those of many of our constituents are constantly in the hands of the captains of British Midland and British Airways who fly us between Edinburgh and London. What is his view of their reaction?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman refers to the trips that he and I frequently make between Scotland and the House. I have sat beside him on many occasions, and he has carried out an informal poll of the pilots of British Midland and British Airways, which he kindly shared with the rest of the cabin. I agree with him in this instance—I have done so on many occasions previously—that there is strong opposition among pilots to the proposals. The Government should listen carefully to that message. I support the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I was drawing attention to the fact that financial considerations are at the heart of this debate. The most recent accounts for NATS show that the service increased turnover to £566 million in the past year and produced an operating profit of £63 million and a net cash inflow to the business of some £9 million. The point is that NATS has consistently paid for itself.
We believe that the investment requirements could also be paid for—a case could be made directly to the Treasury about the need simply to provide such investment. However, we do not believe that that is the only route. One could, through a trust or an independent publicly owned company, secure the financial regime that would allow the organisation to borrow against the strength of future cashflows. The Deputy Prime Minister and others have argued for months that they have advanced the only option, but it is increasingly clear that that is not the case. The Government's option does not bear much analysis.
Air traffic control after privatisation will remain heavily regulated. To all intents and purposes, it is a monopoly, and rightly so. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh said, demand and growth in that sector are severely constrained and outwith the control of NATS. The commercial concern that takes over the organisation must find its return and improve profits by focusing on costs. The public throughout the country are concerned about the matter to the extent that cost cutting will focus on areas that are essential to safety—as yet, they remain to be convinced.
Politicians on both sides of the House and elsewhere have argued about that matter for months, but we do not need to worry about who is right or wrong because we can turn to NATS itself, as hon. Members who spoke earlier have already done. Earlier this year, the economic regulatory group at the Civil Aviation Authority sent out a second consultation paper on setting en-route services charges in United Kingdom airspace for the first five years after privatisation. As has already been said, it contained significant average price reductions and real cost-per-flight reductions in the charges that would be allowed. It also opposed making massive capital expenditure reductions to obtain efficiency gains.
The response of NATS to that paper was, to say the least, rather blunt. Its response document in May contains a paragraph that gets to the point. It states:
The cuts in cost and investment currently being proposed by ERG have little foundation in the reality of NATS' business and licence obligations, and so pose very serious risks to the delivery of services to NATS' customers. NATS could neither accept nor implement these proposals.
As recently as 16 October, in a presentation to the air traffic control work force, NATS management repeated those criticisms. They said that ERG was proposing a tougher average annual real price reduction
than was set for any other utility at privatisation—this is especially inappropriate for a safety activity where service depends on adequate investment.
Cost efficiency—ERG places too much emphasis on cost reduction and neglects the risks to service delivery.
Incentives to invest: ERG's proposals send confusing signals to investors and do not provide the necessary incentives for capital investment.
NATS could not have been any clearer about its position. It concluded that the severe cuts in operating costs and investment were inconsistent with the proper carrying out of NATS functions.
Apart from the concern of NATS about how it will be regulated after privatisation, there is our serious concern about the nature of the strategic partners who want to be part of the privatisation process. One of the key players in the Novares consortium is Lockheed Martin, a huge American multinational. It is the prime supplier at Swanwick, it has the contract for the new Scottish centre, and it is greatly involved in telecommunications and other systems. It is not in the habit of running air traffic control services. Its only motivation in this instance can be to ensure that it controls the paymaster of a service which, through overruns and delays, has already cost it some £150 million at Swanwick. That surely represents a major conflict of interest—a fact which the Government have yet to see fit to countenance.
The Airline Group—one of the other significant players—has been set up as a not for profit consortium. Most of the important United Kingdom airlines, including British Airways and British Midland, are part of that consortium. They do not themselves believe that the profit motive is appropriate in the case of this privatisation. The other side of the coin, is the fact that there is naturally a conflict of interest, because they are far the most significant customers and it would be handy for them to control the whole operation to the potential disadvantage of competitors.
How can such conflicts of interest be overcome? A document sent out by the Government inviting tenders stated clearly that those with a real or perceived conflict of interest would be eliminated from the process, but the Minister and his colleagues have yet to explain how the Government have dealt with concerns about very real public sector conflicts of interest.
There has been silence in response to criticisms, even those from NATS. Just as worrying, however, is the silence from the other part of the CAA with a direct interest in the process—the safety regulation group. I can trace no public statement of the group's observations about the proposed structure, or about the serious points made by NATS and others. Does the group agree with the current approach, or does it disagree? We do not know. Checking the Department of the Environment, Transport


and the Regions website earlier today, I did not find even the NATS response to the economic regulatory group. I certainly did not find anything from the safety regulation group. The information concerned, however, goes to the heart of the debate, and until it is in the public domain the public are right to be suspicious.
When the Minister kindly gave way to me earlier, I had an exchange with him about the number of safety inspectors who will be employed after privatisation. He defended himself by saying that the Government would devote more resources to safety if more were asked for. That is a hugely complacent attitude. If the Government really believe in the safety case, which they have put passionately on many occasions, they should ensure that they—or at least the CAA—take steps to increase resources and, in particular, increase the number of inspectors who will be required to check what is going on after privatisation.

Ms Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the number of safety inspectors should be increased whatever structure is adopted for NATS?

Mr. Moore: I welcome the hon. Lady's intervention, especially as it gives me the opportunity to remind the House that we support another provision that will ensure the separation as between the CAA and NATS of the overriding responsibility for safety. That is welcome, regardless of whether or not NATS is in the public sector. Whatever the structure—whether it is that proposed by the Liberal Democrats or by other Members—additional inspectors are clearly needed, even if only to give the public the confidence that such matters are being treated seriously. Frankly, the Government's complacency undermines whatever fine words they may occasionally use to show that they believe in safety.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a related problem in that most NATS standards are above the minimum standards maintained by the safety regulatory group? Therefore, the SRG will have to extend its monitoring role to a huge range of activity that it does not have to inspect at present. Where will the resources come from?

Mr. Moore: It beggars belief that the Government have not asked those questions. The process is summed up by the suggestion that the Government are waiting for the CAA to ask them for more resources, rather than proactively investigating whether more resources should be provided or whether more inspectors should be recruited. More details are emerging about how the privatisation will take place and how the regime will operate afterwards, but the Government are failing not only to provide good answers but to provide any answers at all.
The public are greatly concerned about transport safety generally. The public, the pilots, the air traffic controllers and many Labour Members, as well as Opposition Members, do not support the measure. There are growing concerns about the ability of NATS to cope with the regulatory regime after privatisation and serious problems

about the suitability of possible strategic partners. Privatisation raises more questions, not less. We want the process to be stopped, and we shall at least support its delay.

Mr. Mark Todd: I have listened carefully to the contributions so far, and some valuable points have been made about the relationship between the CAA and any contractor that provides air traffic control services in this country. However, I want to turn first to the principle involved and then—to the misfortune of those hon. Members who heard my previous speech—return to how we should define the relationship with the private sector in delivering out safety services.
Air safety involves a complex web, comprising the design, manufacture and maintenance of aircraft, flight crew competence, and the operation of airlines and airports, as well as the management of traffic in the air. We allow aircraft to be designed, built, flown and maintained by private businesses. We allow them to be flown on behalf of private operators. We allow them to fly into privately run airports. I do not understand the qualitative argument of those who want to disbar the private sector from any role in the ownership or management of air traffic control. Of course, we do not even make that judgment consistently now—we allow private contractors to develop key systems for NATS.
It could be argued that NATS has not performed the task of managing those projects particularly well. We allow NATS to win contracts competitively, in a private sector environment, for a large proportion of its work. We also allow other contractors to operate air traffic control services in other parts of the United Kingdom, including at East Midlands airport. Although that airport is just outside my constituency, the aircraft fly over my home and many air personnel of various kinds live in my constituency.
In the previous debate in the House, it was suggested that a private sector owner—we must bear it in mind that only 46 per cent. of NATS would be sold in trade terms, the other 5 per cent. being sold to employees of the company—would seek to press operating savings on the service, impacting on safety, and that that would have an inevitable consequence for the safety record of the service. I worked in the private sector for 20 years before coming here. I recall an intervention that I took in the previous debate, implying that the private sector simply drove down costs and maximised shareholder value, and that that was the only interest it had in any business that it ran. No sound private sector business deliberately jeopardises its core activity through cost-cutting.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I wonder what my hon. Friend would make of the statement by Gerald Corbett from Railtrack:
We cannot actually keep our shareholders happy at the same time as fulfilling our public service obligations, and that tension is just massive.
He also said—I invite my hon. Friend to comment on it:
In the early days after privatisation I think we probably did concentrate too much on shareholders and the profit agenda.

Mr. Todd: That is a fair point, which I anticipated might be raised. There is clearly a tension. We would be unrealistic if we did not recognise that, but that is why


we have a regulatory framework. One of the points that we must recognise about Railtrack—I think that there is reasonable consensus on it in the House—is that the regulatory framework for safety in the rail sector was poorly designed. Anyway, it was built for an industry where the safety impetus was of a lower strength than it is in the air sector. Therefore, the comparison, although well made—I take my hon. Friend's point—does not directly apply in this instance.

Mr. Dalyell: I am listening to my hon. Friend's thoughtful speech, as I listened to his speech last time, but what bothers some of us is the ability of the private owner that he talks about to finance investment that may be uneconomic but very important for safety reasons.

Mr. Todd: If that company's core business is the provision of safe services, it will have to factor into the basis on which it funds the company the acquisition of such systems—but let me counter the argument by an alternative line. The public sector is not immune from the discipline of cost-cutting. The equation that appears to be made sometimes is that the private sector is driven by the desire to drive down costs and the public sector has money spilling over to carry out new service development and uneconomic investments.
Those of us who have represented people—I have in the House and did so as a councillor before that; I have done it throughout my adult life, pretty much—are well aware that the public sector has the same, if not more, disciplines and has to find savings, often at the jeopardy of convenience, and, sometimes—dare one say it—at the jeopardy of the safety of the citizen. There is the issue of how the national health service is funded and the difficult choices—I buy into that—that must be made in a public sector organisation about who to help and who to save. We must face that sort of equation within the public sector, too. Drawing that line between the public and private sectors, saying, "Good on one side, bad on the other; it is cost-cutting on one side and affluence on the other" is simplistic. We need to set it aside.

Mr. Moore: May I return to the extract that I referred to from NATS submission to the CAA, based on the regulatory regime that is supposed to apply after privatisation? In that document, it says:
NATS' prime duty is the safe provision of air traffic control.
Severe cuts in operating costs and investment are inconsistent with the proper carrying-out of NATS' functions. Surely, in those circumstances, it is not a question of public or private. The public sector is criticising its own Government's regime.

Mr. Todd: I think I am right in saying that that dictum has been set out regardless of the ownership framework of NATS. I stand to be corrected. I will willingly give way if the hon. Gentleman says that it is specifically premised on the basis that the ownership will change, but, as I understand it, that is a dictum regardless of the passage of the Bill. I may be wrong. I see some Ministers nodding, so I am probably correct. I have not heard anyone dissent.
I shall spell out the issue a little further. Direct public sector ownership does not equate to maximum safety provision. Nor, sadly—again, we must recognise it

as public representatives—does it always equate to maximum accountability. There was a time—I have been in my party for a long time—when we probably had simpler views on the strengths of the public sector and the weaknesses of the private sector. Over years of exposure, I have found it to be more complex than that.

Mr. Martin Salter: Patronising.

Mr. Todd: I will give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene. I think he wishes to speak later.

Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend will get to hear it all soon enough.

Mr. Todd: I am sure I will.
I return to the core point because I do not want to detain the House for long; many Members wish to speak. The case that I touch on in a little more detail is East Midlands airport. As I have said, it is owned by the private sector. The air traffic control system there is operated by the private sector. It is the largest freight airport in the United Kingdom. It was said in the previous debate that it was a small operation, but those who live near it would deny that.
The fact is that that airport has, out of its own funds, recently invested in a completely new control tower and systems which are the envy of most airports in this country. That was done by private finance. It was not forced on to the airport by a public sector body, nor was it carried out by a public sector contractor.
I see no logical basis for excluding the private sector from NATS ownership. We take no such stance in any other part of the air safety network. We do not even take a consistent position on that within the air traffic control system itself, as I have said.
I recognise the strength of some of the arguments that my colleagues have made; I heard the word, "Patronising". I am not wedded to the view that the proposal is the only possible solution to our air traffic control needs. There is consensus that massive new investment is required in the service and that there is a range of possible solutions, but I have sought to point out that the somewhat dogmatic position that has been adopted—that private sector means dangerous, unaccountable or higher-risk—is simplistic. Therefore, on balance, on the basis of the intellectual argument that I have heard, I will continue to support the Government—but I say "on balance". I understand the points that have been made by my colleagues.

Mr. Chidgey: I oppose the Government motion, but, before I make my contribution, may I refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who spoke with great clarity? I recall earlier in the Parliament when he and I spoke on transport matters from opposite Benches. Listening to his speech, we got an insight into what the real policy was behind the proposal.
6 pm
I have a constituency concern in the issue. As some hon. Members may realise, my Eastleigh constituency borders the new Swanwick centre. Many of my


constituents work at the Swanwick centre and, on various occasions in past months and years, have contacted me to express their concerns about the plan for NATS. Not the least of their concerns is that they will not be able to do their jobs as well as they do now. They have genuine concerns about the safety of the general travelling public, whom they feel it is their fundamental task to protect.
The Minister knows what has happened at Swanwick. Although those facts are pretty much public knowledge, it is worth reminding ourselves of them. The new centre is forecast to be six years late, and it has already cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than it should. As we know, Lockheed Martin, which is a multinational concern, is both the prime supplier at Swanwick and a leading bidder in the Government's part-privatisation proposals for NATS. Those facts should suggest to the House and, I hope, to the Government that there is some variability of competence in the private sector.
As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, there is more than one solution. The hon. Gentleman very eloquently and rightly pointed out that no particular part of our economy is perfect. However, neither the public sector nor the private sector is perfect. I say that with more than a quarter of a century's experience of working in the private sector on projects rather similar to Swanwick, although they may not have had the same outcome.
Ministers seem to have an almost childlike faith in the ability of profit-motivated private companies to cure the ills that we see in NATS. They seem to be claiming that only a public-private partnership can meet the necessary investment targets and deliver the modernisation programme that is necessary to cope with the growth in air travel.
Today, I was a little alarmed to hear the Minister say that the controversy in the debate—in which the House is rightly engaged—on when and how the proposals should be implemented are in themselves causing a decline in recruitment of trainee air traffic controllers. Although it may not have occurred to the Minister, perhaps the prime reason for declining recruitment is that potential recruits do not want to join an organisation that is no longer in the public sector or known to have as its fundamental aim the safety of the public whom it serves. Potential recruits may be concerned that a profit-driven company would not maintain the standards that they would wish to achieve. Either of those may be a key factor in people's decision whether to join NATS. Recruits who believe that the safety of the airways and of millions of passengers is paramount are perhaps particularly turned off by those considerations.
We should deal with NATS' response to the economic regulatory group's consultation. Does the Minister know of any organisation that has been able to achieve the type of targets set by ERG in its consultation paper? ERG proposes that there should be significant initial and subsequent price cuts leading to reductions of between 21 and 35 per cent. by year 5; assumed operating cost efficiency of the same order; and assumed savings of between 16 and 29 per cent. in capital expenditure. ERG is proposing that, in an organisation that is crying out for capital expenditure, there should be a saving of between 16 and 29 per cent.
ERG is also proposing not only that a 7.5 per cent. efficiency gain should be assumed in NATS' plan, but that NATS should make a profit. Where does safety come in in such a regime? I do not know of any organisation that has been able to achieve such targets and make a profit, let alone maintain safety levels. Let us face it—air travel is pretty risky. Aircraft do not stay up on their own. They are not like a No. 9 bus when its engine fails on the Clapham road and it just stops. Aircraft have a nasty habit of falling out of the sky, particularly if they are too close together and hit each other.
Ministers say that they have constructed a Bill that they believe makes safety the paramount issue in NATS' future, and I do not doubt their sincerity at all. I am quite sure that the Minister is absolutely convinced that he has done everything he can to ensure that safety is paramount. However, experience tells us that saying something does not make it happen.
I am sure that, when the railways were privatised, Ministers in the previous Government and Railtrack were equally sincere in their belief that they had created a structure that maintains as a paramount feature the safety of the travelling public. However, we do not have to be reminded of what happened at Paddington and at Hatfield to realise that one can get it wrong, and that saying it does not make it happen.
The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—who has left the Chamber—said that the railways have a different safety culture, but I have to correct him. Anyone who has been involved in the engineering side of the railways will know that, whatever faults British Rail had, it was determined to run a railway. In BR's culture, although passengers may have been a bit of a nuisance and had to be put up with, safety was absolutely paramount. Any BR regional engineer who allowed his section of track—his permanent way—to get into the state that caused the Hatfield accident would have been sacked on the spot. Safety is built into public transport systems.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have complete trust in the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to enhance maritime, rail, road and air safety. However, many of my constituents have a deep distrust of privatisation, private finance initiatives and other public-private partnerships. I fear that the Government have failed to win over constituents who have that distrust, which I share.

Mr. Chidgey: Such public perceptions should greatly concern us. Members of Parliament are, after all, the guardians of the public good and the public need. Clearly, the Government have failed to win that argument on the public's safety concerns.
The question is not whether privatisation is the solution, but whether we need a solution. The issue is not to decide whether public ownership is the only way forward, but to determine what is wrong with the current system and how to improve it without a wholesale sell-off. As the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh said, the issue is being driven by financial considerations, not by considerations of how best to develop and improve our National Air Traffic Service. That is the key issue.
The PPP has been debated at great length and with great clarity in the other place. Although I shall not rehearse those arguments, the point that has come through in


parliamentary debates on the issue is that we do not have to sell off a substantial chunk of NATS to get the things that Ministers rightly say are needed—such as project management skills and an investment stream, which are what the Minister said he is most concerned about.
Anyone who has been involved in the type of projects undertaken by NATS knows that it is possible to procure high-quality management teams who have experience not only in the United Kingdom but around the world. One can buy in those services. One can even buy in greater expertise than that which would be available to the particular bidder who won the contract to run NATS. One can also find the income stream necessary to finance improvements to NATS.
There is absolutely no reason why NATS—it is a rock-solid organisation with a substantial guaranteed income stream; last year, its profits were almost 15 per cent., which is not bad in most organisations—could not raise the money that it needs to reinvest and to develop. However, it needs the Treasury's permission to do that. That is the nub of the issue. If NATS could raise money in its own right, there would not be a problem. NATS could develop equally well as a not for profit organisation.
We do not have to sell off half of NATS to raise the necessary money. We can ensure that it remains in public ownership, which is what the public clearly want. Most important, we can ensure that NATS remains publicly accountable.
Given that in the House and across the country there is great controversy and concern about the Government's plans, and given the horrific example of rail privatisation and what happened when safety was disregarded because of the pursuit of other interests, including profit, surely the Government should take a step back. They should invite the National Audit Office to review the PPP plans. We in the House do not have an answer to every problem; we would be incredibly stupid and arrogant if we assumed that, just because we have the power to make decisions, our decisions are necessarily right. This is the time to step back and allow people with no vested interest to look deeply into what the Government are trying to achieve, no doubt with the best interests of the public at heart.
Unless the Government can make sure that their plans provide for the public a solution that is sound, safe and robust, and unless they can show that their proposals are in the interests of the taxpayer and, most important, those of the travelling public, I fear that they are going down a slippery slope. They should let the NAO look at the proposal carefully and come back with an answer in which the House can have confidence. Otherwise, I fear that in a year or so the Minister could well be back at the Dispatch Box, just as the Deputy Prime Minister was recently, having to apologise to the House and the public for a failed privatisation that compromised public safety, with all that that entails.

Mr. Salter: I have now spent the best part of two years examining the future of our country's highly acclaimed and widely admired air traffic control service. In that time, I have visited the biggest control centre in the world at Heathrow airport, only a few miles from where I was born and where I once worked. I have spoken to pilots, controllers, managers, union representatives, air safety experts, Government Ministers and airline executives—

in fact, I have spoken to almost anyone and everyone connected with the industry. Above all, I have spoken to my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members who live directly under a flight path. Our skies are already overcrowded and the lives of those people may depend on the decisions that we take tonight. I have also spoken with my hon. Friends, to whom, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this short contribution is primarily addressed.
Let us look back to just over a year ago. I was in the middle of organising groups of Labour Members who were desperately unhappy with what the Government were and still are proposing to do to air traffic control. The Paddington rail disaster had occurred. The wreckage was still being cleared from the tracks, and my constituents who survived that awful crash were trying to come to terms with the wreckage of their lives. I have lost count of the number of my hon. Friends who spoke to me at the time; the conversations were always the same. They said, "Surely the Government won't go ahead with the privatisation of air traffic control now. Surely they are bound to drop it. There must be a better way." As we all know, they will, they are not and there is, so long as Labour Members who remain unconvinced do something about it and vote with our consciences and not, as we usually do, with our Whips.
I can well understand the argument that is being put about by the Government's business managers that Labour Members should think carefully about supporting amendments proposed by the Conservatives in another place. It has a certain resonance; it appeals to the tribal core. But I would suggest that there is a more powerful argument that my hon. Friends should weigh in the balance: what on earth is any Labour Member doing supporting a Tory proposal that we vehemently opposed at the last election?
While the House of Lords, for as long as it remains unelected, has no political mandate, nor do this Government have a mandate to push through a privatisation that we opposed so publicly and that was the subject of that famous speech at the last Labour party conference before May 1997. Let us remember how we all applauded the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and those carefully crafted arguments about commercial pressures compromising safety. We still hear those arguments from Government Ministers, but not today.
6.15 pm
Let me take a moment to praise not only the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but the highly efficient operation that has been mounted by the Government Whips Office. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government will win the vote tonight, but, as we all know, winning the vote and winning the argument are not necessarily the same thing.
The case has not been made for this partprivatisation—not remotely. The Government have three clear objectives: first, to deliver an investment stream that is essential for the modernisation of the operation; secondly, to take National Air Traffic Services out of the public sector borrowing requirement; and thirdly, to invigorate the project management by bringing in private sector expertise so that the service would be in a position to


compete for a possible single European sky. All those objectives are entirely laudable and supportable, and entirely achievable without resorting to privatisation. That is the tragedy of the situation—we do not have to be here.
A solution is at hand. It is tried and tested and it is the preferred option of the Select Committee. It has the support of everyone in the industry. It is, of course, a not for profit trust based on the Canadian model. Established in 1995, NAV Canada delivers the Government's objectives in spades.
Financially, under current arrangements there is a 7 to 8 per cent. growth rate in air traffic. It is a highly profitable industry. Those running air traffic control in this or any western European country would have to try extremely hard not to make a profit or a surplus. In fact, NATS currently returns to the Treasury a surplus of between £30 million and £40 million annually. In 1998–99—these are the most recent figures I have available—NATS returned a pre-tax profit of £64 million. We need to modernise and we need private sector involvement, but let us not forget that the private sector involvement in Swanwick, which led to the delays and the fiasco, was carried out by none other than the US defence corporation Lockheed Martin, which is on the Government shortlist as a preferred strategic partner.
Let me tell hon. Members that when Lockheed Martin was in the frame for the running of AWE Aldermaston, which is just upwind and upstream from my constituency, I received an e-mail from someone in the United States with the simple words, "God help you." Lockheed Martin was the corporation responsible for Three Mile Island, a famous nuclear disaster. Its defence establishments have been suspended and are under investigation by the federal Government in the United States for breaches of safety procedures. I would suggest that it is not so much a case of biting the hand that feeds you, as of feeding the hand that bites you.
Of course we want air traffic control to be taken out of the public sector borrowing requirement. That is an entirely laudable objective, and, as I have said before, entirely achievable. Why should air traffic control compete for hard-earned public cash with police officers, firefighters, the national health service and schools? No one wants that and there is no need for it. The Post Office investment plans are already outwith the Treasury rule. The borrowing requirements for some of our regional airports have already been exempted from the PSBR. The trust model delivers freedom from the Treasury's financial straitjacket. That point is not in dispute. In fact, NAV Canada was so successful that in its first year it raised from the market in the private sector $3 billion, twice the amount needed, according to Government calculations, to fund the UK's investment requirements for the next 10 years.
NAV Canada has a board of directors who concentrate exclusively on the safety regime of national air traffic control. People with private sector expertise are involved, but they are balanced by representatives from the Government, the airlines and the unions, and some members of the board are independent. NAV Canada delivers gain without pain. Its structure works. I must therefore ask, as the Transport Sub-Committee has asked, why the Government are so against adopting it.
I am aware that other hon. Members want to participate in the debate, but I want to commend to the House the report from my colleague Lord Brett. He took the time and trouble to examine the Government's very derisory response to the trust option proposed by the Transport Sub-Committee. The report comprehensively demolishes the objections to the trust model. I hope that Ministers will return to it.
As I said earlier, winning the vote does not necessarily mean winning the argument. Good politics is about taking people with us, but there is massive opposition in the Labour party to the proposals. The NATS PPP is not something that will appear on a pledge card, and no one who supports the Government in the Lobby tonight will be proud of proposals that no one will mention in an election manifesto or personal address. A vote will be taken, and many people will want to forget that they ever participated in it.
The opposition in the Labour party is replicated out in the country. The latest poll shows that 76 per cent. of the population is against the proposals—hardly surprising after what happened at Paddington and Hatfield. Only 14 per cent. of people are in favour of the proposals to privatise air traffic control, which makes them more unpopular than fox hunting. We know what passion that issue arouses among Labour Members and out in the country.
There is deep hostility to the proposals among pilots, who do not belong to a Marxist trade union and who are not a group of workers renowned for their militancy. There is implacable opposition from air traffic controllers—the men and women who have given us the safest, most efficient and best service in the world.
We in this House make bad laws and bad decisions when we do not listen. We must remember the 75p pension rise and the poll tax. It is not too late, but the consequences of not listening when it comes to the future of air safety in this country are extremely serious.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Salter: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not; I have sought no interventions and have taken none. However, my hon. Friend is allowed one heckle, if he so desires.
I make no apologies for drawing parallels with the reduction in safety standards directly caused by the privatisation of the railways. I am genuinely worried that history is about to repeat itself. It is still not too late, and there is still time for the Government to listen.

Ms Osborne: As the House will be aware, I am deeply worried about the future of the new Scottish air traffic control centre, and I want to concentrate mainly on issues related to that. However, I want to repeat concerns raised by several hon. Members earlier, most notably by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), about the cuts in capital proposed by the economic regulatory group. Those proposals are very worrying, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to them.
I cannot agree with the comments made by hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who talked about a dogmatic response among those—myself included—who have set out other alternatives. Perhaps I


could buy his argument if people were suggesting that the status quo was the only option, but several alternatives have been laid out. Most notable among them are those set out by Lord Brett, whom I congratulate on his work. As far as I know, therefore, it is not true that any Labour Member is guilty of responding dogmatically.
The Tory proposal on deferral would delay the sale and the PPP for NATS until after the general election, and would have implications for the new Scottish centre. The Tories say that they made their proposal because the PPP was not part of the Labour manifesto at the last election. Like my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, I find that a bit rich.
The Tory proposal also shows the Opposition's contempt for the future well-being and security of air traffic control, for the urgency with which investment is needed, and for the 700 jobs in my constituency that would be jeopardised if the amendments were accepted. Previous Tory Governments can take the credit for getting NATS into the position it is in today. There has been a chronic lack of investment, and constant delays have cost an astronomical amount of money and caused ever-mounting pressure on the system.
The Tories now want to delay the PPP even longer, although they claim to have no safety concerns arising from privatisation per se. Their only possible motivation, therefore, is to make a pathetic attempt to reap political capital, whatever the cost to jobs and investment.
The Tory party's obvious aim is to delay the PPP, and it would bring in full-scale privatisation if it had half a chance. I note that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said earlier that the Tories would now consider adopting a trust framework for NATS. At this late stage, such a change of face is astonishing. They have always opposed and voted against that option in the past, but now they bring in the possibility purely for bandwagon reasons.

Mr. Jenkin: In fact, we supported a proposal for a trust tabled by a Labour Member on Report.

Ms Osborne: I accept that, but Conservative Members did not support the amendment relating to the trust option that was tabled in the Lords and which could have been considered in this House this evening. Tory Members have a strong record of supporting full-scale privatisation, not trusts.
I do not believe that the amendments would allow an alternative solution such as trust. In that, I differ from some of my hon. Friends. We have argued for three and a half years about the various options. I have played my part in those discussions, but it is clear this evening that the PPP is the only show in town. I fail to see what can be achieved by further delay. Accepting the amendment would only cause further delay, and it would play into the hands of the Tory party.

Mr. Don Foster: I understand that the hon. Lady, inevitably, has to be worried about the impact of the proposals on her constituents, but will she reflect on what has been said about safety by many hon. Members of all parties? Does she truly believe that the PPP will provide a safe way forward for air traffic services?

Ms Osborne: There has been much discussion about safety and about proposals alternative to the PPP, and I

have taken part in that discussion. The amendment does not deal with those issues, but proposes delay. I do not see how delaying the matter further will aid safety.
My greatest fear is that further delay will jeopardise the new Scottish centre and 700 jobs in my constituency. I cannot stand back and watch that happen. The new Scottish centre has been subjected to years of procrastination, delay and speculation already. It was for that reason that I campaigned for the Government to accept an amendment ensuring that current investment plans would be honoured.
In the past week, the competition to design the new Scottish centre building was won by Gibb Developments. The winning design was the work of Ron Moncrieff, who hails from Prestwick and whose first job was at Atlantic house there. My local newspaper, the Ayr Advertiser, carried a picture of the winning design, but people in my constituency have seen many pictures before. I want work to begin on the ground now, and I challenge any hon. Member to guarantee that the new Scottish centre will go ahead if the PPP is delayed any longer.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend will recall, from times when she has raised this matter before, that my hon. Friend the Minister responded by saying that funding for the Scottish centre would come by the traditional route. Does she not agree that it cannot therefore be dependent on a PPP?

Ms Osborne: That is not entirely true: £60 million of public money has been put forward, but that amount is predicated on the fact that the PPP will fund the remainder of what is needed.
Last week, I asked the trade unions in my constituency what guarantees there were that the new Scottish centre would go ahead if the PPP were delayed any longer. Dave Carty, vice chairman of the local branch of the trade union to which NATS employees belong, told the Ayr Advertiser last week:
If it gets underway, great. We have heard so many promises up until now. Seeing is believing. It will another five years with the present conditions. There is quite a lot of work going on. Our traffic has increased by eight per cent. every year. That's with no extra staff. The waiting is constant.
Yes, the waiting is constant, and Tory party policy in this House and in Scotland is for further delay and full-scale privatisation. For the sake of jumping on yet another political bandwagon, 700 jobs in my constituency would be lost for good. The Tories are joined by the Scottish National party, which also supports delay, no matter what the cost. Do not play politics with 700 Scottish jobs. They should keep their hands off those jobs or they will never be forgiven by the Scottish people.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) spoke earlier, and while I respect his every contribution—they are very considered—I have to say that there are others of us who also come from private and public sector backgrounds. Even when I was a chief executive in local government, I managed a commercial operation within the private sector. I bring to this debate that experience, as does my hon. Friend.
The issue for us is not about the dogmatic approach of "public good, private bad" but about the decision-making process of this dangerous policy. In the passage from


policy to legislation, I believe that politics, policy making, Government and Parliament have been shown at their worst. The development of the initial political commitment was based on a deceit. This is not just about the statement at the Labour party conference about the air not being for sale. Air traffic controllers in my constituency received letters from Labour party spokespeople saying that there will be no sell-off.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) did not divulge what went on when he was on the Front Bench, and I honour him for that. However, we all know what happened. During the election campaign, the Tories found a black hole in our Budget proposals, and every Labour Front-Bench spokesperson was supposed to come up with a proposal to fill that black hole. The air traffic control sell-off was brought back on to the agenda to plug the gap. It was panic selling as a knee-jerk reaction to an issue in the election campaign.
If this does not show policy making or politics being degraded, it is government by fix. We know that the Government have the resources to avoid making this sale but the Treasury is demanding that the Deputy Prime Minister go ahead with the policy. It is allowing him to swing in the wind. This is about high politics in Cabinet—it has nothing to do with the policy itself. The tragedy is that the determination and commitment for which we all admire the Deputy Prime Minister—his ability to see things through to the end, as he has done on so many occasions—has become a terrible weakness and liability. It has become a determination not even to countenance the possibility of being wrong.
This issue has shown Parliament at its worst as well, although some good speeches have been made. We used to say that ambassadors were honest men sent abroad to lie. Junior Ministers have come to the House and, although I do not want to be rude, it is a case of the production of bovine faeces. The statements that have been made time and again in a serious debate are unbelievable. They have not addressed the issues and concerns that have been raised.
I say to my fellow Back Benchers that there are issues of principle here. Tonight we cannot allow principles to be put up for sale as well as air traffic control: this is too important. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said that we should have learned our lesson after what happened in the summer and the ensuing claims about arrogance. We are still affected by the 75p pension increase. I think that in some constituencies we are also still affected by the mayoral election stitch-up. We are still affected by asylum vouchers and lone parent benefit cuts. We must learn our lesson.
The Government have put forward three arguments. They are selling off NATS to introduce new management. They are selling it off because they need the capital. As for our counter-argument, they say that the sale will not affect safety. The last refuge of a defeated intellectual argument is that this is suddenly a constitutional issue.
As for the management argument, we know that NATS is an operational success story. Its annual report for 2000 shows a record number of flights being handled, with a record low number of risk-bearing airprox incidents. In other words, NATS has achieved the highest safety level

in our history and across the world. Passenger delays have fallen over the past five years. NATS has also achieved the best level of customer satisfaction in our history.

Mr. Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend talks about the safety record of NATS, which is to be welcomed and praised. I ask, in all innocence, whether there is a difference in the safety record of airports that use NATS as a public service, those which use it as a contract service and those which use private providers instead. If so, would he advise us to avoid certain airports?

Mr. McDonnell: That point has been made time and again. It relates to experiences in the mining industry. I was a full-time officer for the National Union of Mineworkers at one period in my career. We had private mines then, but they were relatively small and insignificant. We set the safety standards in them by ensuring that the major mines stayed in public ownership. Safety standards were dependent upon the scale of public ownership and regulation that set the standards for others in the nationalised industry.
We are talking about 2,000 air traffic controllers, of whom fewer than 200 work in the private sector. Safety standards are set by the 2,000—they are set to standards operating across the country. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) described Luton as a safe airport. Luton has just come back under NATS control. NATS is winning contract after contract based upon reliability and guaranteed safety.
The issue here is the failure of project management—we understand that. That is why we want to look for solutions for project management rather than simply selling off NATS. The argument is that project management in the public sector is particularly weak. Yet the channel tunnel was hardly a wonderful example of project management in the private sector. Lord Macdonald argues that there needs to be a shareholder. It did not work with the channel tunnel. There was a single shareholder in the dome, and it did not work there. The argument does not hold water.
We have looked at other forms of contractual arrangements in the public sector to undertake proper project management. They have not even been explored in this debate. If shareholders are required for project management, why is that logic not extended across the health service, the police service and the fire service? Are we really into the full-scale privatisation of public services on a scale not envisaged even by the Opposition?
Reference has been made to these wonderful potential shareholders. I do not even want to mention Lockheed Martin. Serco is just pulling out of Liverpool airport. Earlier in the year, a report was leaked from the Airlines Group in which it examined how contributors to the group could gain preferential treatment in the sky—a lunatic proposal, yet it was being considered seriously.
This takes me back to our experiences as a party when the Conservatives introduced compulsory competitive tendering. There was no market—it had to be invented in order for companies to come forward. That is what is happening here. Yet some companies—Boeing and others—have pulled away because they do not see it as a practical option.
Lord Brett's report is very interesting with regard to the NAVCAN proposals. When the NAVCAN board meets, the airlines press time and again for cost-cutting measures


and reductions in charges. In every paragraph of that report, the other partners reject those proposals because the trust binds them into a safety role.
Anyone who knows anything about the airline industry knows that this proposal is already an anachronism. It is a United Kingdom solution, whereas no one is interested in individual in-country solutions. There must be an integrated solution to air traffic control at least across our continent; otherwise we shall not be able to cope with the year-on-year growth of 5 to 6 per cent. A doubling of air traffic is predicted within 10 years. The argument within the industry is based on enhanced technological possibilities, of course, with a Europe-wide solution. Most of the European partners involved in the discussion argue for a public sector solution. We are alone in arguing for a private sector solution.
The International Air Transport Association has said that it looks to a solution through more co-operation between nations in managing pan-European air space. It says that there will be a rationalisation of air traffic control centres. It believes that there needs to be a co-ordinated strategy to create more capacity in the skies: liberalisation but not privatisation. That is the view of one of the organisations of which we are a constituent part.
There needs to be a general technological leap forward. Boeing is arguing for a satellite system. I do not fully understand the merits of that argument, because I believe that there must be a ground-based system at the end of the day. The investment needed to solve the problem goes far beyond the £1.3 billion maximum that we expect to raise through the Government's proposal. We are talking about £20 billion to £30 billion on a European scale. We are leaping ahead of the European discussions about how we arrive at that amount of investment.
It is interesting that the only opportunity for such a level of co-operation is to retain the public sector operation within the UK while the debate continues or to opt for the NAVCAN solution. At least others will have confidence that the priority is safety and service, not privatised profit.
As regards overall capital investments, the NAVCAN solution produces twice the amount of income in terms of the sale. It is bizarre that we are selling off the organisation cheap. We attacked the Tories time and time again for cheap sell-offs, yet we are doing exactly the same thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) talked about the Scottish air traffic control centre. We were given a commitment that the traditional route would be taken. To me, that means money direct from Government. If that means borrowing on the market through a Government bond, for example, that is another form of the traditional route. If £60 million is required, the NAVCAN solution would provide triple that sum from a sale.
I live among people who work at Heathrow as technicians and at air traffic control centres. What motivates the controllers? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister attacked me on this issue and said that industrial reasons lay behind the Government's proposals. My constituents may be passing up the opportunity of up to £50 million in a share-out. Why are they doing that? The issue is not confined to the protection of jobs; it is about doing the right thing for the community. None of them want to live in a community that they may have helped to put at risk. It is as simple as that.
What is the position of some of the ex-members of the Health and Safety Executive? Baroness Gibson, formerly of the TUC, made it clear. She said that when profit comes in, safety is always at risk of going out. That is why she argues so cogently for a not for profit trust.
The argument has been advanced that other parts of the airline industry have been privatised without a decrease in safety. British Airways has been privatised. A report on aviation safety was debated in the House and we found that pilots said that commercial pressures on them were impacting upon safety. The British Airports Authority has been privatised; it is like a city in my constituency, and I work well with it. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has twice called the chief executive of BAA to his office during the Government's term of office to reprimand him for security failures at Heathrow airport. They were the result of commercial contracts involving security. Privatisation lessons have been learned even in the airline industry.
6.45 pm
There is the argument about safety achieved solely through regulation. We seem to have overlooked the fact that, in this instance, safety through regulation is safety at the last stage. Safety must come from within an organisation. That is the lesson that we are learning from Rail track. The HSE and others were incapable of bringing Rail track to heel and making it accept its safety responsibilities. In NATS, everyone is trained to ensure that safety is the first priority. It is deep within the culture of the organisation. As soon as we try in any way to undermine that commitment by introducing the profit element, that culture, built up over the years, will be put at risk.
We were told that there would be a quadruple security lock. We were told that safety regulation would be retained in the hands of the state. We argued for that anyway. We have campaigned for that for ages. That does not undermine the argument that the safety culture must be retained within the organisation.
We have been told that there will be a golden share. That is being challenged in Europe. It is no longer effective and cannot be implemented. The argument has been lost. We were told that there would be a Government director on the board. We have said time and time again that, when the sale takes place, the Government will have only a 20 or 25 per cent. voting option. When we tried to introduce a share voting option in the other place—in other words, some form of majority option vote for Government shareholders—it was rejected. We are left with the licence, which is ineffective if a company is operating in a market and there is no confidence in it.
The Government's final desperate argument is that of constitutional confrontation. If it were up to me, there would be no House of Lords. However, we owe it to the electorate to be honest and straight with them. We need properly to engage in consultation with the NATS work force, who have never been balloted on this issue, except by their own union. As a Labour Government, we should ask the work force what they want. I thought that we stood for that—industrial democracy and a commitment to workers' rights. My hon. Friend the Minister has not visited air traffic control at West Drayton. I live near it. Almost 99.9 per cent. of the work force will be opposed to the Government's proposal. The only person we can


find within the organisation who supports it is the chief executive, and he was brought in to carry out what the Government propose.
Some Members may vote with the Government. However, in my view and that of pilots, air traffic controllers, technicians and the public, the proposal will put my constituents at risk. Heathrow is in my constituency, and I must look after my constituents' interests. There were no apologies forthcoming—well, perhaps one—over the sale of Rail track following the accidents at Hatfield, Paddington and Southall. There seems to be less pressure now for accountability over that sale. If the proposed legislation results in one member of my community are being harmed, there will be no absolution from me, and no forgiveness from my community. I will come for those responsible. At the end of the day, as I have said, my job is to look after my constituents' interests. If the Government's proposals are implemented, I believe that their interests will be put at risk.
I am not alone in saying this. My view is shared by every expert in the industry. It is not acceptable to distort party discipline and loyalty by a demand for blind allegiance when the issue is one that puts my constituents at risk.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I support the Government on this matter, and I feel a chill wind from my own Benches as I say so. We must address some of the matters that have been raised tonight. Hon. Members should perhaps think about their qualifications and motivations for speaking in this debate. Many Labour Members will know that I am not a serial loyalist and am perfectly happy not to support the Government sometimes. I did not do so on freedom of information, and I probably shall not do so on local government, unless they do something about the poor performance they have given my local community recently.
The question is whether we should consider this matter in a different way to that portrayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). What are my qualifications for talking about this matter? I cannot pray in aid the time that I spent making sandwiches in the crew canteen at Heathrow airport, although that does at least prove that I have known the airport for a long time. Indeed, many of my family and friends and members of my local community have worked there. I can pray in aid my experience as manager of an information technology unit. In addition, through the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have had an opportunity to visit many naval establishments at which air traffic control functions are conducted. I had the chance to talk to many of those involved in that process.
I have also examined equipment used by air traffic controllers in the military sector. It is, to put it mildly, antiquated. To put it rather more strongly, it should clearly have been pensioned off long ago. Those systems are inherently dangerous, and people with first-hand expertise say that underinvestment and ancient technology characterise the current system. Yet that system is extraordinarily safe, and I pay tribute to the military sector for its contribution to a staggeringly good record. The people who operate the systems are marvellous. They deal with those systems in ways that counteract the defects. Sometimes, air traffic controllers have to display

extraordinary judgment and an ability to deal with a huge number of factors at once. Sometimes, too, they must display real courage. Circumstances can threaten their own lives, and they know that if their decision brings about a crash, they must live with the consequences for the rest of their lives. They are fantastic.
The pilots who work with those controllers know how marvellous and reliable they are. There is a personal relationship between pilots and those on the ground and a confidence built on extraordinary competence. Each year, though, the system gets nearer to the point at which their competence and their adjustments and their capacity for dealing with inherently unsafe technology becomes increasingly necessary. An 8 per cent. annual rise in air traffic is putting ever more demands on the system.
If one asks air traffic controllers whether they want to change their systems, they will say no. They know the system and have been trained in it. They know what to do to keep planes safely in the air. Pilots, if asked to change their systems, will say no. They rely on a system that involves crucial personal contact with someone in whom they have confidence. As the volume rises, however, the dangers of decrepit technology become ever more severe.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that under privatisation the national en-route centre that is about to come on stream and changes at the London air traffic control centre will be accelerated, changed or improved? There is no indication of that being so.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She, and everyone, surely accepts that we need radical change in how services are delivered, and that change is needed soon.
If a fairy godmother appeared before air traffic controllers and pilots and waved her wand to give them a new system that was much better able to control the ever-increasing volume of air traffic in our skies, they would say that they did not want it. They would be receiving something that they could not operate. Pilots would say that they did not want it. They would say, "I know the old system and can rely on it. You are putting me into the sky with something that I am not sure I can rely on."
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about holding people accountable, and even about coming for them if there were some air catastrophe. Let us be blunt: in any change to an inherently dangerous and complex system, there will be danger during the transition. No matter what system is put in place, there will be a period of transition in which there are dangers. That applies whether the change is privatisation, a public-private partnership or wholly in the public sector.
We should not castigate those who must take difficult decisions at a time of risk. At the very least, they deserve our tolerance and understanding. We should all work to ensure that the decisions that we take are as well informed as possible rather than lining up to blame other people when a plane falls out of the sky.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is keen to use the word "tolerant". Does he believe that air traffic controllers, whom he has praised to the hilt, should be


tolerant towards having to cope with an 8 per cent. increase in the number of flights, towards being required under the new regime to make cost savings of between 21 and 35 per cent. over five years, and towards contributing to the profits that the organisation must now make? Should they be tolerant towards all that?

Mr. McWalter: If the description given by the hon. Gentleman is accurate, no.

Mr. Foster: It is.

Mr. McWalter: The issue, in part, is what level of investment will be appropriate, relative to need. I share the feelings expressed by some hon. Members that the plans are insufficiently ambitious, given the huge difficulties that the system will face. Beginning to negotiate that and adjusting it as it goes along are two different things.
7 pm
Earlier, I mentioned that my background is partly in information technology. We could tell air traffic controllers, not that we are going to wave a magic wand, but that we are going to give them a new system for which they will be trained and appropriately skilled, over, say, a three-year period. If, however, that IT system is entirely from the public sector, will they feel that they had been given the safest system imaginable? Labour Members know the history of IT projects that are entirely in the public sector and are aware that those projects have a lamentable record, partly because of problems with underfunding and under-investment. When we employ people in IT in the public sector, we underpay them by a factor of three or four and then wonder why we often get a poor product.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Did Siemens do a good job for the UK Passport Agency?

Mr. McWalter: Siemens did a terrible job for the Passport Agency, partly because the commission that it was given was drafted by civil servants who failed to understand the most elementary facts when dealing with the process of commissioning IT projects. There is an important issue that relates directly to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). If one contracts out an IT system and pulls in a product from Siemens, the Electronic Data Systems Corporation or whoever and says, "Thank you, very kind of you to have done this, now we will operate it," it will go bottom up. As we all know, systems so delivered are virtually useless. When one commissions an IT project, one must not simply draft a spec and get people to deliver it, but must get them to operate it so that when it starts to fall down they are responsible for fixing it.
Trying to have that kind of relationship with the appropriate IT provider pushes one in the direction not of old-fashioned commissioning but of involving IT providers and other appropriate providers in matters on a continuing daily basis. That relationship should not be about giving the private sector the job and taking delivery of a product that we operate ourselves, as that would be unsafe and taking heinous, unnecessary and culpable risks. Instead, we should try to ensure that we learn from

our mistakes in IT projects in the public sector and have a new management structure that reflects the fact that, for some years to come, the public sector will not have the appropriate IT expertise to commission products or take them and run with them as appropriate.
Some hon. Members have said that there are no arguments in favour of the Government's proposals. However, I have suggested that there are such arguments and that people must think about safety first. Delivering safety involves looking out for the best possible expertise and availing oneself of it at an appropriate cost. If it eventually becomes clear that the relationship between the Government's cost projections, their ambitions and the expertise that they seek to commission involves a mismatch in plans, I will join my colleagues who are going to vote against the measure tonight. However, I will not do that on the basis of the plans that are before us.

Mr. Don Foster: I shall be brief, as I know that other Members wish to speak. The hon. Gentleman has just said that if he is not happy with the funding arrangements for the measure, he is prepared to reconsider how he will vote. May I assure him that the cost reductions of 21 to 35 per cent. in the first five years that I asked him about are the figures in the economic regulation group's recommendations that are currently being talked about.

Mr. McWalter: Tonight's vote is about whether or not to defer the proposals. Issues regularly arise on whether or not projects are effectively funded. I have already said that there is an IT expertise shortfall in much that goes on in such circles. I will be as vigilant as many other hon. Members in ensuring that there is not a shortfall at any stage when those matters are dealt with. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his comments and shall bear them in mind as the project unfolds.

Mr. Dalyell: As our debate ends at 7.29 pm and as so many important points have been made by my colleagues, I feel that, on reflection, it is more important that the Minister for Housing and Planning has time to reply than that the House has a speech from me.

Dr. Desmond Turner: I am going to be almost as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and make one or two quick points.
The Secretary of State has presented the issue as a constitutional one. However, for Labour Members who are deeply unhappy with the PPP proposals, it is not a constitutional issue—indeed, that is a smokescreen. It is an issue of safety and corporate governance, on which the PPP arguments have unravelled day by day, with further powerful darts being slung in tonight. If the Secretary of State wants us to go into the Lobby, not in support of the PPP—which would be difficult—but to support the Government against a motion for deferral, he must give us an assurance on safety. That assurance must not just be about saying that safety is in public control when regulation is in public control, because the operation is equally crucial.
There is no reason to say that if the PPP does not go ahead, there will be terrible consequences, which the


Secretary of State has laid out. That is unnecessary, and there is still time to go down alternative routes, such as that of a trust. If the Secretary of State will say that he is prepared to do that, we shall by all means vote for what he proposes. However, if he does not do that, we have a real problem on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate with contributions from both sides of the House. However, it is noticeable that there has been a surprising dearth of Members on the Conservative Benches, despite the fact that we have been debating Lords amendments that were tabled by their colleagues. There has been a fairly significant attendance on the Liberal Democrat Benches and large attendance on the Government Benches, but the House will note that the Conservative Benches have been largely empty for most of our debate.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), speaking for the official Opposition, started out with a rather curmudgeonly series of personal attacks, and then became prickly when it was suggested that his position might not be that of the absolute arbiter of Conservative party policy on the subject. His reluctance to recognise that he is part of a team led by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has become familiar to us. It reminded me of the line from Shakespeare—Richard II, I think:
Man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority.
We welcome the hon. Gentleman's presence, but I hope that he will recognise that he has to prove himself by his performance rather than his stated claim to a particular status.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions. He took the view that the operational split could go ahead without the change of ownership. I disagree with him. Only if we implement the transfer schemes will we be able to take NATS out of the ownership of the CAA. It is essential, therefore, to proceed with the legislation to enable that to happen.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about shareholder dilution, and claimed that the power of the Secretary of State to amend clause 48—a Henry VIII clause—would make the safeguards worthless. I have to remind him that the power to amend the Crown shareholding section can be exercised only by affirmative resolution and is thus subject to parliamentary approval and the full parliamentary process. The Government take that seriously, even if the hon. Gentleman does not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) started by giving a fairly detailed explanation of the circumstances leading up to his written statement to the House on 11 June 1998. He expressed concern throughout his speech about safety issues. It was in that very statement on 11 June 1998, whatever his concern may have been about the background to it, that he said:
This package, taken together,—
he was referring to the PPP proposal—
will guarantee the highest safety standards as air transport increases in the future.—[Official Report, 11 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 637W.]

He said in a press release issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:
Safety will remain the overriding priority with NATS subject to independent safety regulation to a very high standard.
He was right in that statement, and that remains the case today.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: In 1997, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who was then Minister of Transport. I recall vividly his saying to me, "We should not be doing this." He mentioned it to me a number of times. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that as the truth.

Mr. Raynsford: That may well be the case, but if so, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh will have to explain why he made it clear on the record in the House that the package would guarantee the highest safety standards, and explain his other comments that I have quoted. If he believed that that was not the case, we would all have to say that he should not have put his name to that statement.

Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even if my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) was in favour of what is being proposed, it would not make the slightest difference to my views and the way in which I will deal with the matter when it comes to voting? Although I can understand my hon. Friend quoting my right hon. Friend, the fact remains that what matters is the substance of the matter, as I said when the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was talking about the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister, not who said what or when. What matters is whether the proposal is right or wrong, and I happen to believe that it is wrong.

Mr. Raynsford: The substance of the matter is clearly whether we believe that the PPP delivers the highest possible safety standards. We happen to believe that it does. We have strong evidence to support that case, which I shall outline in my speech. Those who do not believe it have to provide evidence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh was clearly confident enough to say on the record in the House in June 1998 that safety would be guaranteed fully under the PPP. I support that point. When a statement of that nature is given to the House, the Member who makes it usually thinks carefully and seriously before giving it. I hope that my right hon. Friend reached a fully informed view which led to that statement. I have certainly looked into the matter carefully before coming to the House to give the statements that I have given tonight on behalf of the Government. I do not make those comments loosely or casually.

Mr. McDonnell: It is demeaning to have tittle-tattle between members of our party, not least because the Minister came to the House to tell us that the Mayor would be selected on the basis of one member one vote, and then supported the alternative system. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Mayor is nothing to do with the matter before us.

Mr. Raynsford: I will come back to my hon. Friend later.

Dr. Godman: I have said on numerous occasions that I have every trust in my right hon. Friend the Deputy


Prime Minister's commitment to maritime, rail, road and air safety, but I share many of my constituents deep mistrust of privatisation, and the PPP in this case. It is a question not of safety but of ideology and mistrust of privatisation, whether part or whole.

Mr. Raynsford: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes. He made it in an earlier intervention, and I intended to respond to it later. I do not believe that safety is a matter of ideology. Safety is a matter of safety, and we should consider it on that basis. I shall explain why in a moment. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely committed to the maintenance of the safest possible regime in respect not only of air traffic control but other transport modes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh referred to issues of national security. It is important to put on record the fact that the proposal for the PPP has been discussed in detail with the Ministry of Defence. There has been a great deal of discussion about how the arrangements will work in practice, and the MOD is satisfied that the arrangements will provide an utterly satisfactory guarantee of national security. We should expect nothing less.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh also raised the question of foreign ownership. We do not rule out the possibility. It would be odd and slightly illogical to do so, given that we believe that air traffic services throughout the world will change in the years ahead, and there may well be a consolidation crossing national boundaries, in which case there is bound to be some element of foreign ownership. However, there must be absolutely satisfactory frameworks in place to secure the national interest in the event of a national emergency—clauses 87 and 88 provide that—and proper safeguards to ensure that whoever is selected as a strategic partner is an appropriate and safe person to entrust with this important service.
In Committee, we went at length through the detailed safeguards that are in place. I will not detain the House by going through them again because time is short; we have only 10 minutes left for this debate. However, I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that a series of interlocking safeguards will ensure that only an appropriate and safe person can be appointed to the important role of the strategic partner.
The hon. Member for Tweed dale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. The Government have given that matter considerable and careful attention. We have made the necessary arrangements to ensure that any perceived or actual conflict of interest will be addressed and will be resolved during the bidding process. We have built a two-stage check—each bidding group has been required to identify and suggest remedies that will resolve to our complete satisfaction any conflicts of interest that may have existed as the groups submitted their initial, indicative bid—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Only bidders who gave us that satisfaction have been allowed to participate in the next stage.
The second check comes into play in the final stage. It will require an exhaustive and detailed account of how each proposed strategic partner would demonstrate to us that any remaining conflict issues could be handled. No group would be appointed as the strategic partner if there was any doubt as to how conflicts would be neutralised.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale mentioned the attitude of the safety regulatory group. I assure the House that the Civil Aviation Authority—including the SRG—firmly supports the PPP. The SRG has assured the Government that it is wholly confident of maintaining safety under the PPP. I repeat that the amendments that we shall discuss later make safety the No. 1 priority; they will require the maintenance of the highest safety standards, whether or not they are above the statutory minimum.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the SRG have the resources to undertake that work with the few inspectors it currently has at its disposal?

Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that if the SRG believes that it needs more resources, it will put that to the Government; we shall consider such a request very sympathetically indeed. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is a safety regime that ensures that safety is the No. 1 priority. We will not deny the SRG the resources to deliver that regime. I give that assurance clearly.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale also suggested that there might be a problem with the charge cap in relation to the PPP company. Ministers will set the cap and will take account of CAA advice in doing so, but we shall also take other factors into account—including the comments of NATS. On no account—again, I can give the House an assurance—will we set the cap at a level that will create operational difficulty for NATS, or that will raise the slightest question of a risk to safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made a thoughtful speech in which he rightly highlighted the complex issues. He also stressed the importance of avoiding the stereotyping of the public and private sectors. I very much agreed with his views, which were based on detailed experience—not least of his local East Midlands airport.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) misinterpreted my comments about the possibility that recruitment to air traffic control was being adversely affected. To make the matter absolutely clear, I said that, if there was a further period of delay and uncertainty, it would be likely to have an adverse effect on the ability of NATS to recruit the necessary staff. Uncertainty is wholly undermining to services such as those provided by NATS.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we needed the proposed solution of the PPP. Surprisingly, he made that point after noting in his opening remarks the regrettable delays and the cost overruns that have occurred at Swanwick near his constituency. As I shall emphasise at the end of my comments, it is precisely such problems as delays and overruns that make it essential that we establish a structure that will ensure efficient and effective operation of the service, including the procurement of the new technology that is vital to its future success.
I was a little surprised by the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) at the beginning of his speech that he had spoken regularly to Ministers; neither the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), nor I have held any detailed discussion with him on this issue.

Mr. Salter: Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and


other Members who are high up the ministerial ladder do count as Ministers? Many of us have engaged in intensive discussions on this matter for a long time.

Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to know that my hon. Friend moves in such illustrious company.
My hon. Friend referred to the NAVCAN model. The Government have set out the view that the future of NATS is best assured through the creation of a PPP; that remains our view. The NAVCAN experience may well suit Canadian circumstances, but we do not believe that it is necessarily the best solution in this country. However, a number of frameworks similar to those in the NAVCAN model will apply in the PPP; there will be Government-appointed directors; there will be consultation on any charging regime; safety regulation will be carried out by a public sector authority; and there will be Government emergency powers of regulation and direction. Those aspects are shared with the NAVCAN model.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) rightly highlighted worry about the 700 jobs in her constituency that could be put in jeopardy by any delay. She dealt most effectively with an intervention from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) when she clearly made the point that safety is not part of this amendment. The amendment is about delay, and my hon. Friend has every reason to feel worried about the risk to the jobs of her constituents and to the two-centre strategy if the whole venture were to be delayed for no good reason—which would be the effect of the amendments we are discussing.
My hon. Friend also referred to the views of the economic regulatory group on capital expenditure. I make it clear that the advice from the ERG did not propose cuts in NATS capital spending. The group questioned NATS' track record in achieving its capital expenditure targets—as well it might. The real question is about what the strategic partner can achieve with effective project management experience. We shall address that question in taking decisions on charge control. Whatever decisions we take will facilitate the investment that is so desperately needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) described the proposal as potentially dangerous, but he offered no evidence whatever for that allegation. Without objective evidence that there is a threat to the safety of air passengers, I regard such comments as unhelpful; they inflame fears without sound grounding. My hon. Friend gave a rather fanciful interpretation of the way in which the Government have approached the project and took—if I may so—an uncomradely view of Ministers' handling of it. He, too, spoke about NAVCAN, and I have already responded on that matter.
My hon. Friend expressed the view that private company interests inherently threaten safety. He said that when profit goes in, safety goes out.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Raynsford: I contrast my hon. Friend's very ideological view with the measured and well-informed view of my—

Mr. McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not seem to be giving way.

Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am coming to the end of my remarks—there is only half a minute left for the debate.
The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington are in contrast with those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who rightly based his remarks on his practical experience of IT and highlighted the importance of good and successful procurement.
Our proposals have been considered carefully; they place an absolute emphasis on safety as the No. 1 priority and they will provide the necessary investment. I urge the House to reject the amendments.

It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Ways and Means resolution, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 228.

Division No. 335]
[7.29 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Allen, Graham
Cann, Jamie


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Caplin, Ivor


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Casale, Roger


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cawsey, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Church, Ms Judith


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Battle, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clelland, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Clwyd, Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coleman, Iain


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corston, Jean


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cranston, Ross


Blears, Ms Hazel
Crausby, David


Blizzard, Bob
Cummings, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul



Borrow, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Burden, Richard
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Drew, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Drown, Ms Julia






Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ennis, Jeff
Lammy, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Laxton, Bob


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foulkes, George
Lock, David


Galbraith, Sam
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNulty, Tony


Grocott, Bruce
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Moffatt, Laura


Hope, Phil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moriey, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pickthall, Colin


Kemp, Fraser
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Plaskitt, James


Khabra, Piara S
Pollard, Kerry


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris





Pope, Greg
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pound, Stephen
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Stringer, Graham


Purchase, Ken
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles



Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rapson, Syd
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Todd, Mark


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tynan, Bill


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


Sarwar, Mohammad
Walley, Ms Joan


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


Sawford, Phil
Watts, David


Sedgemore, Brian
White, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wicks, Malcolm


Singh, Marsha
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wilson, Brian



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woodward, Shaun


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John
Wyatt, Derek


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Clive Betts and


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burstow, Paul


Allan, Richard
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Cable, Dr Vincent


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baldry, Tony
Chaytor, David


Ballard, Jackie
Chidgey, David


Bames, Harry
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Clapham, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clappison, James


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bercow, John
Collins, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Connarty, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boswell, Tim
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brake, Tom
Cotter, Brian


Brand, Dr Peter
Cran, James


Brazier, Julian
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Burnett, John
Davidson, Ian


Burns, Simon
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)






Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Livsey, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Loughton, Tim


Dobbin, Jim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Donaldson, Jeffrey
McDonnell, John


Duncan, Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Etherington, Bill
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fearn, Ronnie
Maples, John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Flight, Howard
Mates, Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Fraser, Christopher
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Garnier, Edward
Moore, Michael


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Gibb, Nick
Moss, Malcolm


Gidley, Sandra
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Oaten, Mark


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Öpik, Lembit


Gray, James
Page, Richard


Green, Damian
Paice, James


Greenway, John
Pickles, Eric


Grieve, Dominic
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Prior, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Randall, John


Hammond, Philip
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Harris, Dr Evan
Rendel, David


Harvey, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Hawkins, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Hayes, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heald, Oliver
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Salter, Martin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Sanders, Adrian


Horam, John
Shaw, Jonathan


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shepherd, Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Illsley, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Johnson Smith,
Spicer, Sir Michael


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Steen, Anthony


Keetch, Paul
Stevenson, George


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kingham, Ms Tess
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Ian (EsherS &Walton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lidington, David
Thompson, William


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Livingstone, Ken
Tredinnick, David





Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Willetts, David


Tyler, Paul
Willis, Phil


Tyrie, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Viggers, Peter
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walter, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Webb, Steve
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Welsh, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. Peter Luff and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 disagreed to.

After clause 61

Lords amendment: No. 31, to insert the following new clause—Pension entitlement of present and former employees of NATS—

".—(1) In this section—
NATS employer" includes NATS, any designated company which succeeds to the business of NATS and any employer other than a designated company which succeeds to or acquires any part of the business of NATS;
NATS" is National Air Traffic Services Ltd whose air traffic services are to be transferred under the provisions of this Act;
protected beneficiary" includes—
(a) any person who, on the transfer date, is employed by NATS and is an active member of the Scheme;
(b) any person who is employed by NATS on the transfer date, but is then too young to join the Scheme, and who subsequently joins;
(c) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date but who is subsequently entitled to rejoin as a NATS employee without a break in their continuity of employment;
(d) any person who is not an active member of the Scheme on the transfer date, but who is entitled to accrued pension rights under the Scheme at that date; and
(e) any person who is prospectively or contingently entitled to benefit under the Scheme on the death of a person covered under (a) to (d) above;

"relevant scheme" means the Scheme or any other scheme of a NATS employer that covers protected beneficiaries, and that provides benefits in respect of the protected beneficiaries which are at least equivalent in value to those applicable to the protected beneficiaries as at the transfer date;

"Scheme" means the Civil Aviation Authority Pension Scheme;

"transfer date" means the date of the transfer of NATS to the public-private partnership.

(2) NATS (or, if appropriate, the designated company) shall, subject to the consent of the Pension Schemes Office of the Inland Revenue, participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer.

(3) If NATS (or the designated company) does participate in the Scheme as a non-associated employer, a proportion of the total assets of the Scheme shall be segregated for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries and the share of assets so segregated shall be equal in proportion to the proportion that the Scheme's liabilities in respect of the protected beneficiaries bears to the Scheme's liabilities as a whole.

(4) If NATS (or the designated company) is unable to participate in the Scheme, that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.

(5) If the shares or business of NATS (or the designated company), or any part of that business, is transferred to a NATS employer other than NATS or a designated company, that NATS employer shall become a non-associated employer in the Scheme and if that is not possible that NATS employer shall instead make available a relevant scheme for the benefit of the protected beneficiaries.

(6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), if a NATS employer is to make available a relevant scheme other than the Scheme, a share of the assets of the Scheme (or of the previous relevant scheme if not the Scheme) shall be transferred to the receiving relevant scheme, calculated on the basis described in subsection (3).

(7) If a protected beneficiary transfers to the employment of another employer that also participates in the Scheme but which is not a NATS employer, that beneficiary shall remain a protected beneficiary for the purposes of the benefits to be provided to and in respect of him under the relevant scheme and if that beneficiary subsequently transfers back to the employment of a NATS employer he shall still remain a protected beneficiary.

(8) For so long as a NATS employer remains as a participating employer of the Scheme in respect of protected beneficiaries, one trustee of the Scheme shall be a member representative selected from amongst the protected beneficiaries, and one trustee of the Scheme shall be an employer representative of the NATS employer.

(9) The NATS employer shall contribute to the relevant scheme at no less than the rate recommended by that scheme's actuary as being sufficient to secure the accrued rights from time to time of the protected beneficiaries in full by the purchase of annuities and the NATS employer shall not be entitled unilaterally to suspend or terminate its contributions to the relevant scheme except upon its insolvency.

(10) On the full winding-up of a relevant scheme, or on a partial winding-up which involves protected beneficiaries, any shortfall in the assets required to buy out the accrued rights at that time of the protected beneficiaries shall be met in full by the relevant NATS employer and shall be treated as a debt on the employer.

(11) If, on the full or partial winding-up of a relevant scheme, as described in subsection (10), the trustees wish, rather than securing benefits by the purchase of annuities, to pay a bulk transfer to another scheme, that other scheme shall be a relevant scheme and the transfer value payable in respect of the protected beneficiaries shall be sufficient to secure a buy out of their accrued rights if the receiving scheme were to be wound up immediately following the transfer.

(12) The NATS employer shall provide future benefits in the relevant scheme which, in respect of the protected beneficiaries, are at least equivalent in value to those available under the Scheme at the transfer date.

(13) No amendment may be made to a relevant scheme which would result in a reduction of the accrued or future rights of protected beneficiaries, nor in an increase in the contributions payable by protected beneficiaries who are active members."

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
First, let me reassure the House that the Government regard the matter of pensions protection for air traffic control staff as one of great importance. Pensions affect us all, and I can well understand why it is a matter of such importance to NATS employees. I must therefore make it clear that we would not act in any way that would put them under threat, and we are not doing so. We have considered in some detail the adequacy of protections for NATS employees. We believe that the necessary protections are in place without the need for this amendment. I shall attempt to explain, as briefly as possible, what the protections are.
7.45 pm
First, the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, to which NATS staff currently belong, is to be amended to make it possible for staff employed by the public-private partnership to remain members of that scheme. That will involve NATS becoming a non-associated employer within the scheme. This arrangement will prevent cross-subsidy between the new NATS section of the scheme, which will relate to a company classified to the private sector, and the CAA section of the scheme, which will remain in the public sector. It will enable NATS staff to continue to enjoy the benefits that they currently enjoy.
Perhaps I can digress briefly to explain the position of current pensioners and deferred pensioners within the scheme. I assure the House that the position of these two groups will remain unaffected by the PPP. They will remain in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, and they will be in the CAA section of that scheme, which will also include current CAA staff. This section will, as I have just mentioned, remain in the public sector. Both groups of pensioners will continue to receive benefits in exactly the same way as they do now.
Returning to the position of existing NATS staff, we have made it very clear to all those bidding to be our strategic partner in the PPP that securing the continued participation of current staff in the scheme is a fundamental condition of being considered for that role. In addition, we will put into the strategic partnership agreement a binding commitment—enforceable by law—that guarantees the continuation of that right on terms at least as favourable as those that exist now.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the strategic partnership agreement be made public?

Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, a draft of the strategic partnership agreement was made available to all members of the Committee considering the Bill. The matter was discussed in detail in Committee, and that is a sign of our absolute commitment to open government in this respect.

Mr. Foster: I asked the Minister that question because the issue was raised in the other place when Lord Brabazon asked Lord Whitty whether the strategic partnership agreement would be published. Lord Whitty replied:
A straight "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1708.]
Why did Lord Whitty say that?

Mr. Raynsford: Lord Whitty said that for the obvious reason there will inevitably be some confidential elements in the document. The key point is that we have made a commitment on the provisions relating to the guarantees for pensions, and we made available the draft document to the Committee, so that there could be a thorough consideration of all the basic principles behind the strategic partnership agreement.
The commitment that I outlined is a very significant safeguard, underpinned by the Government's continued participation in the PPP. NATS staff will also enjoy the protections on pensions that exist under the law of the land, including the provisions in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and in the Pensions Act 1995. They provide, among


other things, protections for accrued benefits and funding levels. Yet another level of protection exists in the scheme's trust deed and rules. These are unusually restrictive and highly protective of members' interests. It is not uncommon for the sponsoring employer of a pension scheme to have the ability to reduce the level of benefits for future service, which are known as "prospective" benefits. However, no employer who participates in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme has that particular power, because the restrictive power of amendment in the trust deed provides that amendments cannot be made to reduce prospective benefits. That is another very valuable and important protection.
I am sure that some hon. Members will draw attention to the precedents for statutory protection in past privatisations. I shall focus on the most recent case where a comparison is made—that of the underground railway staff in London. The London Underground case is much more complex than that of NATS. In the case of NATS, we are arranging a once-and-for-all transfer of the company to the private sector. There is no subdivision of the company and there is no reorganisation of the industry into a number of parts, so there is no need for provision to deal with the subcontracting that occurs in the railway industry. There is no provision for the return of some parts to the public sector, nor are the trust deeds of the two schemes or the arrangements for changes to those deeds comparable—prospective benefits could be changed under the London Underground deed. The two cases cannot, therefore, be regarded as comparable.
Before 1997, the range of outcomes of transfers to the private sector, in terms of pension protection, was highly variable. In 1997, this Government set out to reform the protection of pensions. In 1998, interim new guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office under the title "Better Quality Services". It emphasised the importance of protecting staff pensions in any restructuring that involved private sector partners, and required the quality of that protection to be a factor in assessing bids for partnership. Then, in June 1999, the Treasury issued definitive guidance under the title "A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions", which was incorporated into broader guidance on treatment of staff issued by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of the year.
The objectives of those reforms were simple: to take the fear out of public sector reform and sales as far as pensions were concerned, and to set a common standard of protection that all projects should pass. We now have a comprehensive framework of protections in the standard of treatment of staff. It is a fair deal not only for the staff but for private sector businesses that bid to enter into partnership to deliver public services.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister confirm—I hope that he can—that IPMS lawyers have agreed to that?

Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend bears with me, I shall come to the fairly detailed discussions that my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had with Members of the other place who were instrumental in moving the amendments that we are debating and who have close associations with the IPMS.
I hope that I have given sufficient assurance to the House that a comprehensive package of safeguards is in place to protect NATS staff pensions without the need for statutory provision. However, if some hon. Members still feel that there is a case for agreeing to the amendment, I would add that it contains a number of unhelpful provisions that may not be of benefit either to the scheme members or to the scheme trustees. Let me give a few examples that illustrate the difficulties in amending this complex area.
Subsection (3) of the amendment deals with the split of the fund to take account of the establishment of NATS as a non-associated employer. There is a real concern about a provision that provides for the share of the fund being a simple proportion of protected beneficiary liabilities to all the scheme liabilities. The protected beneficiaries may well receive an unintentionally and inappropriately large share of the assets, to the possible detriment of current pensioners. The arrangement would be so rigid that the trustees would have no flexibility to consider the apportionment in relation to actual needs and circumstances.
Subsection (6) of the amendment rather ignores the principle that, as part of the basic regulation of occupational pension schemes, the pension schemes office is required to give its consent to bulk transfers between schemes.
A problem with subsection (7) of the amendment is that it is possible for an entity wholly unrelated to NATS to become a participating employer in the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme, once it has non-associated status. It is not clear why protection should continue to be conferred in that circumstance.
There may also be real difficulties in squaring the provisions of subsection (8) of the amendment with existing primary legislation under the Pensions Act 1995, as it relates to member-nominated trustees. In particular, there could presumably be more than one NATS employer, which would lead to a disproportionate number of NATS trustees, even assuming that the basic principle of reserved trusteeships by primary legislation is acceptable.
I have tried to demonstrate that we have delivered strong protections for NATS members of the CAAPS, and that the position of pensioners and deferred pensioners in that scheme is not affected by the PPP.
We continue to be of the view that statutory protection is not needed for NATS members of the CAAPS, and I have to say that we have not been able to see what further benefit the statutory protection sought in another place would bring to those members. None the less, this is an important matter and of key interest to staff. Accordingly, while I must ask the House to disagree with the technically flawed amendment that was made in another place, I can inform it that discussions have been continuing with those people who are most interested in the matter, including representatives of the trade union mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell: One problem is that people cannot fully understand the objection to statutory protection. The Government may be right in saying that it is not entirely necessary, but why do they not give the protection the benefit of the doubt and agree to the amendment?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will immediately recognise that the form of statutory protection proposed


in the amendment could result in entirely inappropriate provisions because it is of a generality that does not necessarily take account of the particular circumstances of the CAAPS and the other factors that I mentioned. I have made it clear that if we had any evidence that members of the pension scheme—existing or deferred pensioners—would be prejudiced in any way by the transfer to the PPP, we would be extremely concerned and keen to act to remedy that. So far, we have no evidence that that is likely to be the case.
In a meeting only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister again appealed to those in the other place who are concerned about this matter to come forward with evidence if they really believed that there was a problem. My right hon. Friend assures me that no evidence was made available, but as a key member of the group that was responsible for initiating the amendments was not able to be present, he issued an invitation for further evidence to be submitted subsequently if it was available.

Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful for the information that the Minister is giving to the House, but will he say whether representatives of the IPMS were present at the meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, or was it merely a meeting of Members of another place?

Mr. Raynsford: It was merely a meeting of Members of another place, but it included individuals who have a close association with the IPMS. I have no doubt that they were well briefed by that union.

Mr. Robert Key: I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of what the hon. Gentleman is saying about this complex subject. The problem is that he has not convinced air traffic controllers of the virtues of his scheme. A constituent who is an air traffic controller telephoned me this morning to say that he did not think that the Government realised the strength of feeling among air traffic controllers. He said, "I am not a union man, but I know they have been talking and talking and they are going to find out soon that there is a threat of industrial action, not on the general issue of privatisation, but on the pensions issue. Please tell the Minister." Well, I have done that. Will the negotiations continue right up to the wire and, indeed, beyond?

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to say that the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear during the discussion yesterday that he is still open to propositions if it can be demonstrated that there is a genuine risk that the benefits that are afforded to current pensioners, deferred pensioners or current NATS employees might be prejudiced in any way. We have made that offer clear. We remain open to representations, right up to the wire, so that when the matter is reconsidered in another place, we will be more than happy—assuming that the House agrees with our motion to disagree—to contemplate alternative amendments if there is real evidence that they are necessary.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be odd to seek to put statutory provision in the Bill if there is no evidence of any adverse effect on employees, existing pensioners or deferred pensioners. That would simply be otiose. However, we hear the message that there are concerns. We want to overcome them and I assure the

hon. Gentleman that, if evidence is submitted to show that there is a problem, the Government stand ready to address the issue seriously and with resolve.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is vital to maintain staff confidence, but I am entirely unconvinced by what I have heard and by what I read about the debate in another place. I think that that is why the Government—perhaps unexpectedly—lost the vote. They convinced less than half of their peers to support them. Will the Minister confirm that there is full agreement among pension fund trustees, including representatives of the employees, on how the pensions issue should be resolved? No amendment should be required to resolve differences that should properly be resolved by agreement. Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that the Minister for Transport received a letter from the chairman of the trustees of the Civil Aviation Authority pension scheme about these matters, dated 31 August? I shall read him some extracts from that letter.
8 pm
The letter warns:
the Trustees are concerned about the risk of challenge by disaffected members—
a risk they consider to be high. The letter continues:
the Trustees are reluctantly making preparations to take the matter to court—
to take pre-emptive action. The letter goes on:
proceedings might cost one million pounds, such costs (which you have confirmed the government will not contribute towards) being paid out of the Scheme assets. The Trustees regret that any court action is likely to considerably delay the timetable for PPP.
That appears to be very serious.
The letter concludes:
Whilst we continue to prepare for a possible court application, we urge the government to reconsider its position on legislation even at this late stage. We are advised that if legislation were introduced in a form satisfactory to the Trustees, there would be no need to take pre-emptive court action.
Thus the desire to have something in the Bill to avoid future conflict is not just that of a few disgruntled employees and union representatives. The letter is from the chairman of trustees of the scheme. The Minister has not dealt in any shape or form with the trustees' complaint, and nor did the Minister for Transport in the other place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey merely said of the impending court action:
they are entitled to do it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 554.]
He sounds happy that there should be a round of pensions litigation leading up to the PPP. Have the Government learned nothing from the experience of previous pensions rights transfers in both the public and private sectors?
Many hon. Members will recall how often the Labour party has called for statutory protection of public enterprise staff pension rights in transfers to the private sector. In this case, the pension fund trustees themselves are calling for clarification in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and I raised the issue of pensions both on Second Reading and in Committee—now 10 months ago. The issue has also been raised by the


staff union, and there is every reason to believe that National Air Traffic Services management and the CAA have made representations to Ministers on the question.
It does not feel as though the issue has been properly resolved. This House might not be the place in which to resolve it; the issue has the feel of one that is more likely to be resolved in the other place. Faced with all the evidence, is it not massively complacent of the Government to use their majority to plough on regardless? The Lords amendment was tabled in good faith as a solution to the problems. If it is not the right amendment, let the Minister say that he will table the right one. We shall support the Lords amendment because, so far, we are completely unconvinced by the Government's arguments.

Dr. Strang: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, if privatisation goes ahead, it will not have an adverse effect on the pension entitlement of past or present employees. It is intended to provide helpful assurances to National Air Traffic Services employees and to put into law the assurances that Ministers have given in Committee and in both Houses. I recall the debates in Committee to which the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has referred.
The Government say that the amendment is not necessary, and give assurances that staff pensions will be protected. In Committee, I tabled an amendment with that objective, and I was pleased that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), was able to give me verbal assurances that pensions would be protected. Of course we welcome Ministers' assurances, but, however well meant, they do not have the same strength as protection in a Bill. There is a clear difference between an obligation in law and a statement made by a Minister. We know that Ministers and, indeed, Governments come and go.
I remind the House that there is a schedule to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 dedicated to protecting the pension rights of tube workers who are transferred to private infrastructure companies under the Government's plans for the underground. The Government saw the merit of including pensions protection in that Act. It is clearly right that NATS staff should have similar protection.
My hon. Friend the Minister has suggested that the amendment might be flawed and might not achieve all its objectives. We debated the matter in Committee way back in February and the Government have had a lot of time since then to work on their own amendment. If the Lords amendment is flawed, the onus is surely on the Government to table an alternative to achieve the objectives. The way forward should be to retain the Lords amendment. That would give the Government the option to amend it with a better amendment in the other place.

Mr. Don Foster: Time is relatively short, so I shall be fairly brief.
I begin by paying tribute to the Government for introducing one set of measures that has done great service to many people. The whole House will recall that, in the early days of privatisation, employees often suddenly found themselves doing exactly the same job but for lower wages, under worse conditions of service and

with worse pension arrangements. Although we had the benefit of the introduction of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which ensured that at least employees' pay or salary and conditions of employment were protected, they still did not have protection in respect of pensions.
As the Minister rightly said, the Labour party addressed the matter when it came into government, introducing a number of proposals, particularly through the Cabinet Office, that go a long way to improving the situation. However, I remind the Minister that, on the whole, the documents make recommendations and do not in all cases have statutory effect. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the Government for the improvements that have been made.
Whatever our views on the nature of the new National Air Traffic Services, we are all agreed that there should be separation of NATS from the Civil Aviation Authority. Whatever form NATS was to take, significant implications for pension arrangements were inevitable—changes would have had to be made. I suspect that many hon. Members who have studied the issue in some detail will be aware of the complexity of the new arrangements, and, indeed, the significant cost that will be incurred as a result of them.
The Minister has described in some detail his view of the necessity or otherwise of the amendment, which was moved by Lord Brett and supported by a majority of peers. He has argued in some detail that some aspects of the amendment may be technically flawed. It is interesting that, for each of the five clauses to which he referred, he indicated that there may be technical difficulties. At no point did he say that categorically; he merely implied that there may be difficulties, so there is clearly some doubt.
Much more important, it was revealing that the Minister kept saying that, following the meeting to which he referred, the Government would be prepared to consider tabling their own amendment to address the concerns that have been expressed. He chose many different words to say that. On one occasion, he said that he would be convinced if there was real evidence; on another occasion, he required real evidence of the adverse circumstances that may apply; and on yet another occasion, he said that real risk must be demonstrated.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the definition of "if necessary" is significant. Regardless of whether in his view it is necessary to include such a provision in the Bill, the vast majority of those who will be affected certainly think that such a provision is necessary.
In view of the Minister's comments, I hope that he will be prepared to continue those discussions to which he referred and that, in conjunction with Ministers in another place and representatives of those who are affected by the measure, it will be possible to devise an amendment that will enable the issue to be included in the Bill. There is no genuine argument against that. The Minister argues that it is not necessary and the protection already exists; no harm will therefore be done by putting it on the face of the Bill.
The Minister and I spent many hours in Committee. On many occasions he said that it was not necessary to include safety in the Bill, yet he now accepts that it would be a good idea. As soon as we have divided, if necessary, we shall consider a series of amendments that will enable us to ascertain whether we accept amendment No. 1 and


the others in that group. All are about putting safety on the face of the Bill. The Minister has been prepared to listen on one occasion—I hope that he is prepared to do so again.

Ms Osborne: I am somewhat comforted by the Minister's comments. However, he knows that the public-private partnership has not found favour with the NATS work force, who are worried about various aspects of the proposal and would have preferred a trust model.
Terms and conditions, especially pensions, under a strategic partner are by no means the least of employees' concerns. I understand from the Minister that discussions are continuing in order to reach a conclusion that can fully satisfy them. That is the crux of the matter: will the result deal fully with their concerns?
Given the controversial nature of the change to NATS' structure, as well as the years of constant speculation to which the work force have been subjected, does my hon. Friend agree that everything possible should be done to give them the reassurance that they seek on pensions? If including such a provision in the Bill makes no difference, why not do it, if only to provide that much needed reassurance? If there are problems with this amendment, why do the Government not table another, which would provide that reassurance to the NATS work force?
What is good enough for the workers on the tube is good enough for my constituents. Will my hon. Friend guarantee on the record that no member of NATS staff will be worse off in terms of accrued benefits than at present, and that employees' prospects will be roughly comparable? If I do not support the amendment on the basis that further progress can be made, will my hon. Friend assure me that there will be a further opportunity to assess the position on the Floor of the House, if agreement cannot be reached when the matter is reconsidered in another place?

Mr. Dalyell: I do not believe that there is an opportunity for the Government to table an amendment. In those circumstances, would it not be better to accept this amendment? There is genuine anxiety about the matter.
Our deliberations on the amendment end at 8.29 pm, and it is important that the Minister answers the points that have been made. I shall therefore simply ask a factual question: have the CAA and NATS made representations?

Mr. Raynsford: The debate has been short but useful. It has focused on one key issue: whether there is merit in placing on the face on the Bill some reassurance to cover the anxieties that have been voiced. Let me put the matter simply, in the manner that I used in Committee. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will recall that we did not believe it would be helpful to incorporate an otiose provision in the Bill. If there is no need to do something, including detailed provisions in a Bill appears unnecessary. However, having said that, genuine anxieties have been expressed.
I have referred to meetings of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor with the representatives from another place who were instrumental in tabling the amendments that we are considering tonight. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear to them and to me—I did

not take part in the discussions—that he was perfectly willing to respond positively and constructively if clear evidence of a problem could be produced. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the anxieties of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) shortly because they are slightly different, although he may not realise it.
8.15 pm
So far, no evidence has been presented to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest that existing pensioners, deferred pensioners or existing NATS employees would be adversely affected by the new arrangements after the establishment of the PPP. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne). I reiterate that there is no evidence that any existing pensioner, deferred pensioner or existing NATS employee will suffer any financial disadvantage through the proposals. If there is clear evidence that individuals might be adversely affected, we have emphasised that we shall be happy to respond positively to deal with the problem. So far, no such evidence has been produced.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that he has not taken part in the discussions. May I say, in an old-fashioned way, that on such an important matter, the House of Commons is entitled to hear from a Minister who has taken part in the discussions, and not to get second-hand information?

Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows only too well, individual Ministers who answer to the House are often not party to all discussions that lead to a conclusion. There is a clear understanding that Ministers act collectively, share information about relevant meetings and report to the House in the full knowledge of relevant information from meetings that they did not attend. That is normal procedure in government, and I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges that. It is simply not possible for us to be present in all discussions and negotiations.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend explain what he has just said?

Mr. Raynsford: I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that, although I was not present at the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister held with Members of another place who were instrumental in tabling the amendments, he gave me a full report so that I was in a position to inform the House this evening. I hope that that is clearer.
Let us consider the issue that the hon. Member for North Essex raised. I can confirm that a letter has been received from the trustees and that, of course, we are considering it. However, the trustees are seeking protection not for staff, but for their decisions about splitting the assets. Such splits are common in the conduct of pension trusts, and seeking court action in such cases is unusual. There is no question of such court action delaying the PPP because steps could be taken in the sale documentation to allow for any outcome. However, I am sure that the trustees' view of the right allocation of assets is based on logic and reason. If they acted logically and reasonably, they would almost certainly receive the support of the court in the case of an action.
As I said earlier, a potential difficulty arises if a formula—as specified in the amendments that we are considering—for splitting the assets is applied. That could result in one group being disadvantaged. That is one of the reasons for our reluctance to accept the amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: I am genuinely mystified. If, based on the agreement trustees believe that they have struck with employees' representatives, they fear potential litigation, which will cost money and, they say, delay the PPP, surely that is the sort of evidence to which the Minister referred. I shall quote the trustees' letter again:
We are advised that if legislation were introduced in a form satisfactory to the Trustees, there will be no need to take pre-emptive court action.
Perhaps the Minister will answer the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the views of NATS management and the CAA. They are represented on the trustees. Do they disagree with the trustees?

Mr. Raynsford: That is essentially a matter for the trustees, who, of course, have a special role in relation to the pension fund. Clearly, other representations will be received, and we shall consider them. We will carefully consider responses and representations from the trustees and we shall do so, as I said previously, in relation to our response to the Lords amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. The letter was written on 31 August. It is a sorry state of affairs if the Government have still not decided how to respond to the representations. It is staggering that, in the death throes of our consideration of the Bill, the matter remains unresolved. I am afraid that I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow—these proceedings are farcical. We have had to debate the Bill with the Minister for Housing and Planning who has had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the policy or with aviation.

Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has once again reverted to the rather curmudgeonly approach that he adopted earlier, when he criticised me because I happen not to have been the Minister responsible for particular negotiations. He knows only too well from his experience that we accept the principle of collective responsibility and that we act with fellow Ministers in that spirit. As I said earlier, I am more than happy to respond in the House on the basis of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had with Members of another place.
The key point, which we have already clarified, is that if evidence is forthcoming that shows that existing pensioners, deferred pensioners or existing employees face a serious problem that could have an adverse effect on their financial prospects under a pension, we are ready to respond quickly and positively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised the question of timing. If the House decides tonight that the amendments should be removed from the Bill—I hope that it will—it will still be open to Members of another place, when the Bill returns to them, to consider whether alternative amendments might be appropriate. In that

context, we would sympathetically consider proposals that gave effect to measures that were designed to cope with any such deficiencies that might be identified. However, to date, we have not seen evidence implying that there are weaknesses in or problems with the existing arrangements.
I conclude by confirming that the Government remain prepared, even at this late hour—

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend said something that we may interpret as very important. He said he would consider proposals, which would save a great deal of difficulty, if they arose in the other place. Are those Government proposals, or would they come from another source?

Mr. Raynsford: We would be perfectly happy to consider proposals from any source, including the group of Members from another place that has been particularly concerned with the amendments. If we believed that such proposals were necessary to deal with a genuine problem, and if evidence were produced to show that there was a problem, we should be happy to entertain proposals that might remedy it, even though, as I said earlier, we are not convinced that such a problem exists. At the same time, we could continue to discuss the issue relating to the position of trustees, which was raised earlier. As I said, those concerns are slightly different. However, we are currently not convinced that there is such a need, and we therefore do not believe that it would be right to agree to the Lords amendments, which are in several respects defective and which could have adverse consequences on the position of some categories of pensioner.

Mr. Jenkin: Despite my being curmudgeonly, the Minister is being generous in giving way, and I am grateful. Was he aware of the letter before I raised it with him this evening?

Mr. Raynsford: I was well aware of the fact that there had been communication from the trustees, and that the issue was under continuing discussion. That is clearly on the record.
On the basis that the Government remain open to further representations and have not closed their mind on the issue, the House should disagree with the Lords amendments. If real evidence can be produced to suggest that there is an unresolved problem, an opportunity should be found for further discussion in another place.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 203.

Division No. 336]
[8.25 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Banks, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Begg, Miss Anne


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe






Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Berry, Roger
Follett, Barbara


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Foulkes, George


Blizzard, Bob
Galbraith, Sam


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gapes, Mike


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gardiner, Barry


Borrow, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradshaw, Ben
Godsiff, Roger


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grocott, Bruce


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Healey, John


Caplin, Ivor
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caton, Martin
Hepburn, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Heppell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jamieson, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drew, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Efford, Clive
Kemp, Fraser


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ennis, Jeff
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flint, Caroline
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Lammy, David
Purchase, Ken


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Laxton, Bob
Quinn, Lawrie


Leslie, Christopher
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rapson, Syd


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Linton, Martin
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McFall, John
Roy, Frank


McIsaac, Shona
Ruane, Chris


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ruddock, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McNulty, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


MacShane, Denis
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWalter, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


McWilliam, John
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Singh, Marsha


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Merron, Gillian
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Moffatt, Laura
Soley, Clive


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moran, Ms Margaret
Spellar, John


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morley, Elliot
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Stevenson, George


(B'ham Yardley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


(Aberavon)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mullin, Chris
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Neill, Martin
Timms, Stephen


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy


Palmer, Dr Nick
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Pendry, Tom
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pope, Greg
Tynan, Bill


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire






Watts, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


White, Brian
Woodward, Shaun


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Woolas, Phil


Wicks, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


(Swansea W)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wills, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Winnick, David
Mr. Jim Dowd.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Allan, Richard
Flight, Howard


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Garnier, Edward


Baldry, Tony
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Ballard, Jackie
Gibb, Nick


Barnes, Harry
Gidley, Sandra


Beggs, Roy
Gill, Christopher


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bercow, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gray, James


Body, Sir Richard
Green, Damian


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Grieve, Dominic


Brake, Tom
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brand, Dr Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brazier, Julian
Hammond, Philip


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, Dr Evan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hayes, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heald, Oliver


Burnett, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Burstow, Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hopkins, Kelvin


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Horam, John


(NE Fife)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


(Chipping Barnet)
Hunter, Andrew


Chaytor, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chidgey, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith,


Clappison, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Collins, Tim
Keetch, Paul


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles


Cormack, Sir Patrick
(Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Cotter, Brian
Key, Robert


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkwood, Archy


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davidson, Ian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lansley, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Letwin, Oliver


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Livsey, Richard


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Loughton, Tim


Evans, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
McDonnell, John


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fearn, Ronnie
McIntosh, Miss Anne





MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Malins, Humfrey
Streeter, Gary


Maples, John
Stunell, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Syms, Robert


May, Mrs Theresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moss, Malcolm
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Norman, Archie
Tredinnick, David


Oaten, Mark
Trend, Michael


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Tyler, Paul


Öpik, Lembit
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Wallace, James


page, Richard
Walter Robert


Paice, James
Wareing, Robert N


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Webb, Steve


Prior, David
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rendel, David
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence
Willetts, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willis, Phil


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wilshire, David


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


St Aubyn, Nick
Wood, Mike


Sanders, Adrian
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Randall and


Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 1

SECRETARY OF STATE'S GENERAL DUTY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at beginning insert—
("(A1) The Secretary of State must exercise his functions under this Chapter so as to maintain a high standard of safety in the provision of air traffic services; and that duty is to have priority over the application of subsections (1) to (4).")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10, 26, 40 to 43 and 61 to 65.

Mr. Raynsford: We spent a great deal of time on the previous groups of amendments, so I shall be very brief on this and the subsequent groups that relate to part I, as there is little of great substances in them.
These amendments relate to safety. They will oblige the Secretary of State, the CAA and the Competition Commission, in exercising their functions under the Bill


to ensure that a high standard of safety is maintained before taking into account any other consideration. Therefore, safety levels cannot be compromised, even if they are above the statutory minimum, as is the case in some areas of NATS operations. The effect will be to give safety priority over all other considerations in part I. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed by the House.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is absolutely right. This group of amendments will be warmly welcomed by the House. The Liberal Democrats raised the issue in Committee, in the House and in another place. As we were rebuffed on numerous occasions and told that our proposal was otiose—a word that the Minister was very keen on at the time—we are absolutely delighted that he and his noble Friends now think that it is not otiose after all. It is necessary. I hope that he will give the same consideration to pensions, as I have said; but the amendments are welcomed by Liberal Democrat Members.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise briefly to support these amendments. As some Members will know, I have more than a passing interest in the activities of NATS, having been a pilot for 35 years—albeit, in a private capacity. Having completed my instrument meteorological conditions rating this summer, I am only too well aware of the fantastic job done by our air traffic controllers. I should like to pay them a personal tribute for the service that they provide to military and civilian air traffic and especially to those, such as me, who are involved in general aviation in this country. They enjoy a reputation second to none in the world.
I recently returned from Spain with the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I travelled on an Iberia flight and spent some time on the flight deck. The captain of that Iberia flight had nothing but praise for the sheer professionalism of our air traffic controllers.
Everyone involved in aviation in this country has safety as their No. 1 priority. Nevertheless I feel that if the House decides to accept the Lords amendment, which states that safety will be the No. 1 consideration, that can do no harm whatever in underlining what the priority should be.
Having listened to the arguments adduced in Committee and earlier this evening by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), I have a great deal of sympathy with what he says. He drew attention to an extremely important fact: our air traffic services combine military and civilian roles. It is absolutely vital for the security and safety of air transport in the United Kingdom that that close liaison between the military and civilian worlds continue. I share his reservations about the risk to safety if air traffic control services were to be run by a private company that was not owned by a company in this country. If it were owned by a foreign company that was perhaps controlled by a foreign Government, there would be serious implications that could impact on air safety.
I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber to hear the Minister respond to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh. I was detained elsewhere. However, I look forward to reading his reply in Hansard, because the right hon. Gentleman made some very important points about air safety, and I hope that the

Minister was able to address them. I am delighted to support the amendment, in a sense speaking on behalf of those in the general aviation community in this country. I know that they will welcome it, too.

Mr. Raynsford: I appreciate the remarks of the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I shall not be tempted to move into territory that is outside the remit of these amendments, as you would immediately call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I assure the hon. Gentlemen that I fully share their views, especially the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Aldershot to the calibre and commitment of NATS staff. All hon. Members share his admiration for the service that they provide, and we are of course determined to give them the tools to provide an even better service in future. Safety is the No. 1 priority. These amendments are designed to make that clear, and I shall be delighted if the House agrees to them.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 3

RESTRICTIONS ON PROVIDING SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 2, line 42, leave out from
("area") to end of line 43

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12, 34 to 39, 44 to 60, 66, 67 and 141 to 144.

Mr. Raynsford: These amendments are largely technical, so I hope that hon. Members will not seek an explanation of each amendment individually. I shall make a few general remarks. The amendments deal with the application of relevant provisions of part I to the Crown, and with provisions relating to the disclosure of information and the air navigation and charging regimes.
Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 66 and 67 list the provisions that apply to the Crown and provide that the Crown may not be criminally liable and that the armed forces are not required to hold a licence to provide air traffic services. Provision is made that nothing in those Crown application provisions may affect Her Majesty in her private capacity.
Amendments Nos. 34 to 39 and 44 allow the Secretary of State, in addition to nominating a member of the CAA to perform air navigation functions, to nominate another member of the CAA to consider the relationships between air navigation functions and national security. That may be of interest to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who referred to the dual function of air traffic control providing the service to civilian and military users.
The meaning of the phrase "chargeable air traffic services" as currently drafted in clause 73 would not include all the CAA's services provided in performing its chapter III air navigation functions, nor would that provision allow recovery of the CAA's chapter IV


costs of specifying, publishing or recovery. Where those services are properly recoverable through Eurocontrol, the CAA should be allowed to do so. That is what amendments Nos. 45 to 57 will achieve. Amendments Nos. 58 to 60 place further duties on the Secretary of State to ensure that, as far as practicable, the licence holder is paid the charges due from Eurocontrol.
Finally, amendments Nos. 141 to 144 are technical improvements, designed to ensure that an inability to disclose information obtained under part I does not frustrate either the functions of the Competition Commission, or those of the Independent Television Commission under specified legislation, or the European Commission in respect of Community competition law.

Mr. Robert Syms: I am a little reluctant when we get on to the subject of Eurocontrol, given the many happy hours that we had discussing such issues in Committee.
There is the issue of passing fees on from Eurocontrol via the Secretary of State to, eventually, NATS. In terms of economic regulation, when there is an RPI minus X formula, how does that relate to the charges? We were given assurances in Committee that all the money would be passed to NATS; in which case, do we have a formula to increase efficiency? There has been some debate about the amount of money that the new organisation would have to find in savings and efficiencies. Perhaps the Minister can say a little more about that.
The Minister mentioned national security. Are we still sure about that matter? The argument was advanced that Europe would not impinge on issues of national security and that we are still able to ensure that that is a legitimate issue—when what we understand to be national security is at stake, the Government can get their way.

Mr. Raynsford: I will take the second point first. The key consideration in the provisions relating to security is the Secretary of State's ability to appoint a second member of the CAA, who will have the specific role of overseeing the appropriate arrangements for ensuring satisfactory allocation of air space between military and civilian needs. It is in no way affected by the European provisions.
I turn to the issue of Eurocontrol. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) found it impossible to fail to rise to the bait. That was a cause of much amusement in Committee. If we had had more time tonight, no doubt we could have had a lengthy journey through the more obscure schedules of the Maastricht treaty and other such matters, but lest my remarks tempt anyone to pursue the subject, I will hastily move on.
The RPI minus X framework sets limits. The CAA will be careful to ensure that charges are set within those limits. The specific provision relating to Eurocontrol is an arrangement under which the sums that are paid by individual users and collected through Eurocontrol are disbursed appropriately to all the members. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from our discussion in Committee, that involves quite a complex process: a rough estimate is made of the appropriate apportionment at the beginning of a period and that is subsequently adjusted when further detail has become available, but those procedures will

continue. There is no intention to change them. I hope that I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. There is no secret European plot to prevent the air traffic control system from receiving its necessary dues.

Mr. Syms: I want to raise just one further point to do with licences. The Minister explained that the provision exempted the military from having to have a licence. In the Bill, the term was "licence or licences". I presume that one licence will be issued under the contract and the new arrangement, and that the inclusion of "licences" in the Bill was, as we thought, perhaps for future arrangements, where there might be a split.

Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to confirm that. We envisage only one licence being operated initially, but there could be circumstances where other licences might apply in future. That is the reason for the word appearing in the plural.
If there are no other points, I will urge the House to agree with the Lords in their amendments, so that we can move to the next set.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I warmly welcome Lords amendment No. 36, which deals with the appointment of a national security adviser. Again, putting that in the Bill is important, but may I ask the Minister a question? Subsection (4) of the amendment, which is effectively a new clause, says:
The national security nominee may authorise a member or employee of the CAA to perform on his behalf the functions which he is to perform by virtue of this section.
That suggests that the important appointment of that national security nominee could, in a sense, be reduced by that person being allowed to nominate an employee. I wondered in what circumstances the Minister envisaged the CAA nominee appointing someone else for such a crucial matter. I want to give him time to reflect on that point, but he will agree that it is important. It is a delegated power in an important area.

Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for explaining his point in such detail as to allow me to reflect on it before being required to respond. The provision is included only to make allowance for emergency circumstances—it may be necessary because of force majeure—but it is not intended that the provision would apply in normal circumstances. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.

Clause 4

EXEMPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(e) may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified.")

Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 25, 30, 32, 33 and 133 to 140.

Mr. Raynsford: You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the last group that I shall be presenting.
This group of amendments concerns regulatory and licence-related matters, as well as the transfer schemes. The amendments are largely technical, and the bulk of the group—Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 21, which concern the powers of the Competition Commission to veto licence modifications proposed by the CAA—is merely bringing our Bill into closer alignment with other utility legislation.
Lords amendment No. 15 is important because it allows the CAA to relieve the licensee of his clause 8 duty in respect of services that he is not providing. NATS, which will be the licensee, will not be the sole provider of services in licensed airspace, and it would be unduly onerous if NATS were to be bound by statutory duties for services provided by others. That is the purpose of Lords amendment No. 15.
Lords amendment No. 30 seeks to clarify and strengthen the objective of clause 48(3), which reaffirms the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy for the development of air traffic control. Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 140 provide clarification to the drafting of paragraph 25 of schedule 6—it contains detailed provisions on transfer scheme arrangements—and make consequential amendments to schedule 7, which deals with taxation matters and transfers.
Lords amendments Nos. 32 and 33 provide a definition of the term "Northern Ireland Minister" for the purposes of the transfer scheme provisions.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 26, 30, and 32 to 67 agreed to.

Clause 104

QUALITY PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES

Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 63, line 43, leave out from
("strategies") to end of line 4 on page 64

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 80, 92 to 94, 96 and 145 to 147.

Mr. Hill: This group of amendments is concerned with the new powers in the Bill for quality partnership schemes, ticketing schemes and bus information, and with better bus lane enforcement. The amendments respond to various representations made during the Bill's passage in another place.
I wish to deal specifically with the provisions on bus lane enforcement. Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 192 provide that local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers outside London may apply to the Secretary of State to enforce moving bus lane offences. In so doing, the amendments fulfil an undertaking given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, on 17 February, when he said that it was our intention to extend local authority camera enforcement of bus lane offences to outside London.
The new clause also provides the Secretary of State with powers to repeal the current camera enforcement regime of bus lane offences in London, under the London Local Authorities Act 1996, and to make regulations to enable Transport for London and London local authorities to operate under the new powers as well. Trials of camera enforcement in a number of London boroughs have shown that where the system is operated and resourced properly, it is very effective in reducing bus lane offences by up to 70 per cent.
9 pm
We very much hope that the take-up of these powers on a wider scale will substantially reduce the offences. However, the powers will be available only to local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers. That will ensure that local authorities are able to enforce both waiting and driving offences in bus lanes. The new clause does not give local authorities the power to stop vehicles.
The new clause provides for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations in connection with allowing approved local authorities, Transport for London and London local authorities to impose penalty charges for moving bus lane contraventions, and the payment of penalty charges. Regulations can specify the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid. As we said in Committee in the other place, we intend, at least initially, to make regulations for areas outside London on the basis of driver liability. However, the matter will be kept under review.
In London, the current system operates on the basis of owner liability. We consider it prudent to allow owner liability to continue to apply in London for the foreseeable future, but this will be kept under review. If necessary, any changes to liability can be made by regulations, which would be subject to the negative resolution procedure—and I emphasise that.
As the new clause does not remove the power of the police to enforce moving traffic offences, it has been necessary to include the provision that motorists should not be subject to double jeopardy and prosecution by the police and local authorities for the same offence or contravention.
I hope that the House will welcome all the amendments in this group. They will allow the benefits of statutory quality partnership schemes to be extended to a wider range of circumstances, extend the scope of through-ticketing powers, clarify the scope of bus information under clause 128 and provide for better enforcement of bus lanes. They are a further demonstration of our desire for a more effective and joined-up transport strategy.

Mr. Syms: I have just one brief point to raise. In Committee, we had a lengthy discussion on the impact of the Competition Act 1998. I note that since that legislation came into force in March a number of bus companies have been raided in order to discover whether they were involved in cartels or any other problems. A number of the amendments in the group relate to improved text on through ticketing. At one stage there were concerns that if bus companies had agreements on through ticketing or even ticket prices they might be caught by competition law. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Bill will


work in the way that was intended and that the concerns about competition are just concerns and are not likely to impact on the strategy for buses?

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the amendments. Before pressing the Minister on one particular amendment, let me say that it was a pity that there was nothing in the pre-Budget statement about fuel duty rebates for buses, community transport or express coaches.
The amendment on which I want to press the Minister relates to quality partnerships. I understand that when the matter was discussed in another place Ministers said that fares and frequency could not be included in quality partnerships, yet I understand that that has happened in Scotland. Does the Minister now think that fares and frequency can be included in quality partnerships or does he still maintain that they cannot?

Mr. Hill: I begin my response by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your distinguished office. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members present in extending those congratulations and felicitations.
Let me deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), with whom I expect to have a number of exchanges until a relatively late hour this evening. He raised the ability of quality partnership schemes to stipulate minimum frequencies. The matter has been debated thoroughly, and the hon. Gentleman would certainly have known that, had he been present during those long but stimulating 87 hours in Committee. The matter was debated at length during proceedings on the Bill in both Houses. I can only say that nothing has persuaded us to change our views.
If the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive have reached a different conclusion on the matter, so be it. That is democracy and, dare I say it, devolution. We believe that it would be a mistake to go down that road. As I have said repeatedly, it would blur the distinction between quality partnerships and quality contracts and it would give rise to potential legal and practical difficulties.
I turn now to the question of competition issues, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). I hope that he will forgive me if I read the words before me with some care, as these are delicate issues with many implications. It is therefore necessary to get the matter exactly right—not something for which I am always noted.
The Government believe that there has been unnecessary anxiety about the potential impacts of the Competition Act 1998. Officials have discussed the point with the bus industry and local government representatives, and have sought to give reassurances. However, if it will help the hon. Member for Poole, I am happy to put the matter on record, although I fear that it may prove to be a little technical.
In short, the issue is whether, in spite of the special competition test provided for in schedule 10, a strategic quality partnership scheme could constitute an agreement that could be prohibited under section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998. Our considered view, which is shared by the Department of Trade and Industry and the

Office of Fair Trading, is that, in making a quality partnership scheme under the Bill, a local authority is not engaging in economic activity and is therefore not acting as an undertaking for the purposes of section 2 of the 1998 Act.
In such circumstances, the authority would simply be exercising public law powers in the public interest. We know of no case where the exercise of public law powers of that nature has been held to amount to economic activity.
In addition, to argue to the contrary, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the 1998 Act is not disapplied by the Bill. However, in the event that I am wrong in my interpretation—and that the 1998 Act would otherwise apply—it is our belief that the effect of schedule 10 is to disapply it. That schedule expressly gives the Director General of Fair Trading powers of investigation and decision in respect of quality partnership schemes, in circumstances where the 1998 Act would otherwise apply. It would be odd indeed if the general provisions in the 1998 Act were to operate alongside the special provisions in schedule 10.
The Office of Fair Trading, whose view that is, has made it clear that it does not expect to proceed under the Competition Act 1998. All things considered, therefore, we believe that any fear of duplication can effectively be discounted.
The hon. Member for Poole asked about through ticketing. I can tell him that the Office of Fair Trading is still taking forward its examination of block exemption on ticketing agreements between operators. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and deals with his concerns.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 80 agreed to.

Clause 133

MANDATORY CONCESSIONS OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON

Lords amendment: No. 81. in page 80, line 25, leave out from ("Any") to ("subsection") in line 36 and insert
("person to whom a current statutory travel concession permit has been issued by a travel concession authority and who travels on an eligible service on a journey—
(a) between places in the authority's area, and
(b) beginning at a relevant time,
is entitled, on production of the permit, to be provided with a half—price travel concession by the operator of the service.

(2) A travel concession authority must, on an application made to it by any person who appears to the authority to be an elderly or disabled person residing in its area, issue to the person free of charge a permit, in such form and for such period as the authority considers appropriate, indicating that he is entitled to the concession specified in subsection (1).

(2A) In this section "statutory travel concession permit" means a permit issued pursuant to subsection (2).

(2B) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may issue guidance to travel concession authorities to which they must have regard in determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether a person is a disabled person.

(2C) Before issuing guidance under subsection (2B) the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,
(b) associations representative of travel concession authorities, and
(c) such other persons as he or it thinks fit.

(2D) A person entitled to be issued with a statutory travel concession permit by a travel concession authority may agree with the authority that he is not to be entitled to the concession specified in")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 91, 95, 148 and 149.

Mr. Hill: These amendments concern the statutory minimum concessionary fares scheme under clauses 133 to 139. The main effect is to extend the half-fare concessions to people defined as disabled, and to empower the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance in connection with eligibility, to which authorities must have regard.
The Bill, as originally introduced, applied the statutory minimum scheme to elderly people only. Amendments were agreed in another place to extend the mandatory concessions to disabled people, and that extension has been widely and warmly welcomed. It will mean that up to 1.5 million disabled people will benefit from concessions, in addition to the 5.5 million pensioners who were previously eligible.
In extending the scheme to disabled people, the amendments do two things. First, they refine previous statutory definitions of the various categories of disability, in the interests of consistency and clarity. Secondly, they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on eligibility for concessionary fares, to which local authorities must have regard. This provision follows representations from both local government and members of DPTAC—the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to the effect that such guidance would be helpful to those implementing the new requirements at the local level. The amendment requires that guidance should be subject to prior consultation, and we shall be circulating a draft in due course.
It may be helpful if I say a word about the funding implications and about bringing these provisions into force. During our discussions with the local government associations, it was put to us that the amount of funding we proposed to provide was inadequate to cover the likely costs of the scheme. We have listened to what was said. We have looked again at the figures and in the light of those representations, we are now proposing an annual injection of £54 million into the revenue support grant, which will be distributed to local authorities in the normal way.
We believe that this is a fair settlement, based on the best information available. It represents a further £7 million a year on top of our previous estimates of £47 million a year to offset the additional costs to local authorities. However, I assure the House that we will keep these matters under review in the light of early experience with the new scheme.
We also recognise that there are timing constraints in bringing this new scheme into force, not least for those local authorities that have no concessionary travel scheme at present or will need to make changes that require them to give the statutory four months' notice to the bus operators. Our present intention, therefore, is that the requirement outside London to offer half-fare concessions should not be commenced until 1 June 2001. Again, we expect to be consulting local authorities on that very shortly.
We believe that that should allow sufficient time to put the necessary arrangements in place. Equally, many authorities should be in a position to bring in the concessions sooner, and we would encourage them to work with bus operators to do so. The funding adjustments to revenue support grant will be in place from 1 April.
I should stress that we have sought throughout to take into account representations received from local government and DPTAC, and to respond to what all those people have said to us. We believe that the result is a better, more generous scheme, and I commend the changes to the House.

Mr. Syms: Passenger transport authorities, among other organisations, always complain that, with regard to concessionary schemes in the past, Governments have never fully compensated them, pound for pound, for the additional people riding on various forms of public transport. They have always felt a little short-changed.
The Minister spoke of £50 million for local authorities, and I presume that that includes passenger transport authorities. Has he discussed with them whether they are happy with the resources given to them to do the job? In meetings that I had leading up to the introduction of the Bill, a number of PTAs made the point that governmental organisations always assume that these are extra riding passengers and that sometimes the authorities were not fully compensated for the additional costs.

Mr. McDonnell: My point is on a related issue, specific to London. The Association of London Government has welcomed the Lords amendments, which clarify the approach to criteria for eligibility and the issuing of guidance and consultation. The ALG is grateful for the consultations that have taken place with the Minister.
The London boroughs are already funding the freedom pass concessionary travel scheme, which offers 100 per cent. discount to those eligible. There are no plans to change this level of concession. However, the ALG is concerned that the broadening of eligibility will increase costs for boroughs. The current estimate is that the proposals could result in an additional cost of £14.7 million, which would fall on the boroughs. We welcome the additional money that has been allocated. In the negotiations between the London boroughs and the Government there has been some enhancement, specifically in relation to the acknowledgment that the census data are unrelated to the real needs of Londoners.
There is still a funding gap, and a range of issues needs to be addressed in the continuing discussions—particularly those which arise from double counting and take-up rates, which we believe will be enhanced as a result of the additional publicity. There is no provision currently for administrative costs. The boroughs believe


that there is little choice but to have a full-fare scheme for London, bearing in mind equity in terms of existing schemes. On that basis, the ALG has asked for assurances that the extra resources that the Government provide will be re-examined in the current negotiations. It is keen that the resources should be passported through to the boroughs rather than lost in the vagaries of the rate support grant system.
As the Minister has said, there will be further discussions and consultations. It would be welcomed if the matters that I have raised were taken into account. Rest assured that, the London boroughs are committed to the extension of this excellent scheme.

Mr. Keith Darvill: My point is similar to the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). Having considered the Association of London Government brief, I took the opportunity this morning of speaking to the chief executive of the London borough of Havering. A rough estimate is that the cost of the proposals to that borough will be between £300,000 and £500,000 a year. If the additional funding to take account of these welcome amendments is not passported, local authorities will be left in a worse position. At a time when local authorities are struggling to implement a welcome range of initiatives, funding is extremely important. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Mr. Brake: I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) about a possible funding gap in the travel concessions schemes. Local authorities are concerned about the tightness of the definitions that are being used, in relation to the partially sighted, for example. Perhaps there is scope for that to be considered more widely than a definition would suggest. There are concerns about cost implications. Perhaps the Minister be able to offer some reassurance.
I ask the Minister to clarify when he expects guidance to be issued. I know that he has said that it will shortly be forthcoming, but local authorities need to plan and they need more precise information than that.

Mr. Hill: Departmental officials and I have had long and detailed discussions with local authorities, the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government on these matters. I was left with a powerful impression that their chief anxiety related to issues surrounding the definition of disability, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) spoke. I think that we have been able to offer them considerable reassurance, both in terms of the changes in definition in the Bill and the specific commitment to provide guidance.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked about tightness of definitions. It will be the job of my Department and local government associations to consult and discuss as guidance is being drawn up. As for when the guidance will be issued, the answer is certainly shortly. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) asked about the allocation of funding to PTAs. They will benefit from the new money via the metropolitan districts. We have increased the money by an extra £7 million, which is good news for the PTAs.
On the other issues raised by London Members, I can offer an assurance that London boroughs will benefit from the extra money. We are still discussing the details with them. On passporting, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Hayes and Harlington, we are still talking and are happy to continue to do so until we reach a satisfactory resolution.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 96 agreed to.

Clause 162

EXTENSION OUTSIDE UNITED KINGDOM

Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 96, line 43, leave out ("unlawfully interfered with") and insert
("interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 118, 120, 123 to 132, 150 to 160, 164 to 168, 170 to 188, 193 to 196, 198, 200 to 219, and 221 to 235.

Mr. Hill: The amendments cover a wide range of changes to parts III, IV and V of the Bill, none of which, I suggest, is controversial. Some of them are essentially technical. I shall draw the attention of the House to just two of them.
Amendment No. 123 is a valuable measure in support of the Government's road safety strategy. Existing legislation provides the power for school crossing patrols to help school-age children to cross the road. The amendment provides that patrols can assist children of any age to cross, and extends the powers so that patrols can help any adult who needs assistance, such as the elderly. The clause also removes restrictions on the hours when school crossing patrols may operate. That will complete the package of measures to which the Government made a commitment in the 1998 "Integrated Transport" White Paper. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), whom I am pleased to see in his place, because his earlier amendment on school patrols made it possible for us to develop this more comprehensive measure, which I know he warmly welcomes.
Amendment No. 125 deals with freight facilities grants for shipping. It, too, is a thoroughly useful change, which will extend the existing freight facilities grant to coastal and short sea shipping, as well as extending the scope of inland waterways grants. I hope that it will be welcomed.

Mr. Syms: I welcome what the Minister has said, particularly on grants to coastal shipping. Given what the Dutch and the Belgians do with small, family owned ships that carry a lot of cargo around the coast, and given that we have many ports around our coasts, congestion on our roads and some difficulties with rail, I believe that much more could be done through coastal shipping. Our waterways are heavily underexploited, and everyone in politics should do far more to encourage use of those facilities.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 99 to 110 agreed to.

After Clause 234

Lords amendment: No. 111, to insert the following new clause—Substitute services to be suitable for disabled passengers—

".—(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person who provides services for the carriage of passengers by railway provides or secures the provision of substitute road services, or
(b) the Authority secures the provision of such services (under an agreement entered into in pursuance of section 202).

(2) In doing so the person or Authority shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substitute road services allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort.

(3) In the event of any failure by the person or Authority to comply with subsection (2), he or it shall be liable to pay damages in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred, or other loss sustained, by a disabled passenger in consequence of the failure.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from subsection (2) to—

(a) any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or
(b) any particular person who provides such services,

in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services.

(5) Before making an order under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and
(b) such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.

(6) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(7) In this section "substitute road services" means services for the carriage of passengers by road which are provided where railway services have been temporarily interrupted or discontinued.

(8) For the purposes of this section a passenger is disabled if he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk."

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is designed to ensure that when substitute road services are provided in place of railway services, the substitutes will be suitable for passengers with mobility problems. The amendment meets an undertaking given in Committee, and I commend this new duty as an honourable advance.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Before Clause 241

Lords amendment: No. 112, to insert the following new clause—Charge for whole duration of works—
—(1) In the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, after section 74 insert—

Charge determined by reference to duration of works.

74A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay to the highway authority a charge determined, in the prescribed manner, by reference to the duration of the works.

(2) The regulations shall not require charges to be paid to a local highway authority unless the Secretary of State has approved it for the purposes of the regulations by order made by statutory instrument.

(3) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement to pay charges.

(4) The regulations may prescribe different rates of charge according to—

(a) the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works,
(b) the place and time at which the works are executed, and
(c) such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(5) The regulations may—

(a) prescribe more than one rate of charge in respect of the same description of works, and
(b) provide that charges are to be paid in respect of any works of that description at the rate which appears to the highway authority to be appropriate in relation to those works.

(6) The regulations may make provision for the determination of the duration of works for the purposes of the regulations.

(7) And they may, in particular, make provision for works to be treated as beginning or ending on the giving of, or as stated in, a notice given by the undertaker to the highway authority, in the prescribed manner, in accordance with a requirement imposed by the regulations.

(8) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of charges.

(9) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge—

(a) in any particular case.
(b) in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or
(c) in all cases or in all cases other than a particular case or such class of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed.

(10) The regulations may make provision as to—

(a) the application by local highway authorities of sums paid by way of charges, and
(b) the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of charges.

(11) The regulations may create in respect of any failure to give a notice required by the regulations a criminal offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(12) The regulations may require disputes of any prescribed description to be referred to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the regulations.

(13) The first regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Regulations under sections 74 and 74A.

74B. Nothing shall be taken to prevent the imposition of charges by both regulations under sections 74 and regulations under section 74A in respect of the execution of the same works at the same time."

(2) The reference to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this section and section (Charges where works unreasonably prolonged).")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 113.

Mr. Hill: The issue of disruption caused by street works is of increasing concern to the public and


road users. Several measures are already in place, or are being introduced, which are aimed at minimising that disruption. In particular, we announced in April our intention to activate section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which allows highway authorities to charge utility companies for street works that are unreasonably prolonged.
We have recently finished consultation on draft regulations that set out the detailed arrangements for operating a scheme under section 74. However, we recognise that it may be necessary to introduce further measures if that does not result in a sufficient reduction in the present level of disruption. We will therefore review the situation to see whether further measures may be required on, for instance, powers for highway authorities to levy a charge on undertakers who carry out street works from the first day of works—so-called lane rental.
New clause 112 allows for regulations to implement such a scheme, but it does not try to set out every last detail in the Bill. Should we activate that power, we will consult extensively with relevant parties. The amendment sets out some issues that we want to cover in regulations, such as the level at which charges should be set and the way in which they would vary according to the location and timing of works. The regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution as I have already confirmed, so the House will be able to scrutinise the proposals in detail.
New clause 113 modifies the existing power in section 74 of the 1991 Act for the Secretary of State to issue regulations that require undertakers to pay a charge to the relevant highway authority where their works exceed the deadline that had previously been agreed with the authority. In preparing draft regulations, it became apparent that highway authorities would need clear evidence of when works began and ended in order to be able to charge undertakers.
Following discussion with the relevant parties, it was agreed that the best way of achieving that would be for the regulations to allow notice to be given by undertakers to the highway authorities stating the start and close of works. As the 1991 Act does not allow for such notices, the new clause provides for them to be given and for their content to be prescribed in regulations. As with lane rental, the amendment allows for several areas relating to the levying of charges to be dealt with in regulations, over and above those prescribed in the 1991 Act.

Mr. Syms: The Conservative party agrees with the general thrust of policy. All of us have suffered; many of our constituents have suffered not only because roadworks have been carried out, but sometimes because they have not been finished—parts of roads have been dug up and left for some considerable time. That has caused difficulty.
There has always been a requirement for people to tell the highway authority before they dig up roads. If we move towards a charging regime, setting precisely when work starts and finishes will be important. I wonder whether it will be possible for local authorities to engage in more co-ordination so that when one utility digs up a road another can take advantage of the fact and the same piece of road is not dug up three times in a period. If we

can give incentives to local authorities, if they have to dig up the road, to do it quickly, and allow all the utilities to take advantage of that, a great deal of grief could be avoided for the travelling public.

Mr. Don Foster: I endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and I hope that the Minister will consider his suggestion seriously. All hon. Members present tonight, and hundreds who are not, could cite many examples of problems that have occurred in their constituencies. They may regret that they were not here tonight. This is one example where hon. Members on both sides of the House could obtain popular support back home by saying how desperately keen they are on the amendment.
While I accept the importance of, as the Minister puts it, consulting widely, does he accept that he should also consult quickly? What is his current estimate of when the regulations will be introduced—as I was delighted to hear, by affirmative decision by both Houses. This is the first occasion that I can recall in my nine years in Parliament that we have had two affirmatives to one negative resolution, and I welcome that.

Mr. David Drew: I welcome the change. We hear a lot of calls nowadays for deregulation. This is one of the wonderful examples of deregulation that has been an unmitigated disaster. Those of us who have served on councils can wax lyrical about the problems that deregulation has caused. I will not go on about that because the other place has done us proud and I hope that the amendment will be universally acclaimed. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, we will all be acclaiming it in our press releases.
One of the biggest problems is caused when statutory undertakers have already done the work and apply retrospectively to the local highway authority to complete it. I wonder whether that can be examined. There is certainly a call for some universality in compensation, especially where businesses are affected. I never cease to be amazed by the difference between what undertakers offer. The same people are often affected, and it causes nothing but disagreement when they go to the same undertaker at different times and the sums offered are very different.
Another reason that the state of the roads is so bad is the number of previously dug trenches. That is one of my greatest bugbears. I hope that inspections are not only carried out immediately, but that a regime of long-term inspection can be set up so that extremely poor work can be dealt with.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when roadworks such as he describes are carried out, not only is it important to carry out later inspection, but, as the initial covering of a hole or filling in of a trench will drop after a while, it is important that the contractors return to finish the job? That may be some time afterwards; that is why it is so important to carry out such checks.

Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. The matter relates to time; I entirely agree. I was considering the longer term, when the whole road surface decays because the trench has been dug


inappropriately for the surface. It is important that there is a mechanism to check the state of the trenches months and years later, so as to ensure that the appropriate sums are spent. Then, we shall have a decent road surface on which we can ride our bikes.

Mr. Brake: This is real pavement politics—or at least roadway politics. The businesses in Beddington lane will be overjoyed at the Minister's news.

Mr. Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend the Minister is no stranger to the graceful, sweeping boulevards of Northolt, but those broad avenues that he last saw framed and shaded by noble London planes—and other strange suburban growths—have suffered grievously of late: the same section of road has been dug up not once, not twice, but thrice, in the name of cable television—whatever that may be.
I know not whether cable television is a utility, or whether it comes under telecommunications legislation, but, in order that I may transmit the information to my constituents—not, in the manner of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), in the form of a million "Focus" leaflets, but in a more intimate focus group, perhaps in licensed premises—could my hon. Friend, who has many admirers in the Northolt area and is known as a great friend of the suburban street scene, let me know whether there is any hope for those of us who have seen our roads thrice dug up in the name of cable?

Mr. Hill: Given the reputation of my Streatham constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) should not tempt me on the matter of the street scene in our constituencies.
It is rather a relief that the House is so thinly attended this evening, as clearly we all have our stories about street works. Had more Members been present, this part of the debate would have continued for much longer. The issue evokes enormous passions and interest. I am delighted that we are beginning to take action on the matter.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister help me? I cannot recall whether I mentioned the problems in the London road in Bath.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman did not mention them, but he has done so now. I am willing to take further constituency references before I continue my remarks.
Several important issues have been raised in this brief but lively debate. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to co-ordination. Co-ordination has two aspects: co-operation between the utilities and the co-ordination of traffic movements when street works are being carried out.
Regrettably, it seems that in practice the latter is more achievable than the former. It certainly seems to be achievable to ensure that, where street works occur, traffic is not prevented from taking easy diversions around that route. Here in the centre of London, the so-called Central London Partnership, which brings together the central London boroughs and several utilities, has devised such a programme for next year, which will come into

effect from the beginning of January. Obviously, traffic movement will be considerably eased as a result of such traffic co-ordination.
A more intractable problem is the issue—oh so obvious but oh so difficult to resolve—of utilities co-operating. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned cable television companies. I am told that competition between cable companies is so intense that when local authorities, with the best will in the world, broach with the utilities the issue of co-operation, they are met with sneers of derision at the thought that commercial secrets could be divulged in that fashion.
We, as Members of Parliament, are very fortunately placed. Hon. Members will recall that, a few months ago, Parliament square was subject to considerable disruption as a result of street works, and there one did have an example of several utilities working together, actually carrying out work at the same time. I suspect that in that case there were special considerations because of the location. We were—although we should not have been—very privileged.
I reassure the House that in various ways we are bearing down on this issue, and that we shall be looking for a more effective effort at co-ordination by utilities.

Mr. Syms: Perhaps when the pricing regime is considered, there might be a beneficial pricing regime for utilities that co-operate. That might be a positive way of encouraging co-ordination. I am not sure whether it could be done, but the option should be investigated. If utilities did co-operate, there might be a financial benefit for them in doing so, or even an award of best practice so that we could all know which people were the best at co-operating.

Mr. Hill: I welcome those two suggestions, which are now on the Hansard record. I hope very much that when we carry out our consultation on these matters, the hon. Gentleman will respond. We shall then carefully consider what I dare say will be his more detailed proposals on these matters.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked for my current estimate of the implementation of the lane rental regulations. We have emphasised that we do not expect the immediate implementation of lane rental. Indeed, we have clearly said that we are taking reserve powers with regard to lane rental, and obviously we shall be working and consulting on regulations.
However, let me issue a fairly clear warning to the utilities: as from now, the writing is on the wall. We certainly propose to implement, at an early opportunity, the section 74 penalties for overstaying conditions. We will review the effect of those powers and the use of those powers by local authorities, but if it remains the case that they are unsatisfactory, we will certainly consider, very seriously, moving rapidly to the introduction of lane rental.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) paid tribute to the other place for having brought in this measure. I am actually willing to go further and pay particular tribute to Lord Peyton. In the same breath, I should pay tribute to Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who responded so positively to Lord Peyton's proposals. My hon. Friend mentioned three problems. He spoke about the issue of the retrospective application by utilities for


street works. I agree that that is a scandal. We hope that the effective development of software to ensure better co-ordination of notification will enable local authorities to be more insistent that they get proper notification on these matters.
9.45 pm
My hon. Friend asked about compensation for those discommoded by street works. I can make no offers on that subject, but we need to think about it in a broader context. He also referred to the phenomenon of the inadequate repair of previous trenches, and I remind the House that a two-year liability was established by a recent court case.
I very much hope that the writing on the wall that we have provided in the reserve powers for lane rental and our activation in the near future of the overstaying provisions in section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will stimulate local authorities to be more proactive on the issue of street works. I think that there has been a certain amount of demoralisation historically, but we want local authorities to be proactive and to provide resources at a local level, so that they can scrutinise developments more carefully.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the returns from the penalties will be able to go to local authorities. Central Government have taken several positive moves and we are looking for a constructive, positive and effective response from local authorities.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 113 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 114 to 120 agreed to.

After clause 244

Lords amendment: No. 121, to insert the following new clause—Quiet lanes and home zones—

.—(1) A local traffic authority may designate any road for which they are the traffic authority as a quiet lane or a home zone.

(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations authorising local traffic authorities who have designated roads as quiet lanes or home zones to make use orders and speed orders of such descriptions as are prescribed by the regulations in relation to any roads designated by them as quiet lanes or home zones.

(3) A use order is an order permitting the use of a road for purposes other than passage.

(4) But a use order may not permit any person—

(a) wilfully to obstruct the lawful use of a road by others, or
(b) to use a road in a way which would deny reasonable access to premises situated on or adjacent to the road.

(5) A speed order is an order authorising the local traffic authority by whom it is made to take measures with a view to reducing the speed of motor vehicles or cycles (or both) on a road to below that specified in the order.

(6) The appropriate national authority may make regulations specifying procedures for the making, variation and revocation of—

(a) designations, and
(b) use orders and speed orders,
including procedures for confirmation (whether by the appropriate national authority or any other body).

(7) The appropriate national authority may give guidance to local traffic authorities about matters to which they must have regard in determining whether or not to designate a road as a quiet lane or home zone.

(8) In this section—
the appropriate national authority" means—

(a) the Secretary of State as respects England, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales as respects Wales,
cycle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988,
local traffic authority" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, and
road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

(9) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may make different provision for different cases or areas.

(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 122.

Mr. Hill: Both the amendments are new clauses. One deals with quiet lanes and home zones, and the other with rural road speed limits. Both were introduced by the Government in response to Liberal Democrat amendments that were withdrawn.
Amendment No. 121 will give legal status to the concepts of quiet lanes and home zones, by enabling local traffic authorities to designate them. It will then give the appropriate national authority power to make regulations which, in turn, will enable local traffic authorities to make two new types of order in quiet lanes and home zones: use orders and speed orders. The appropriate national authorities are the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales.
Use orders will be particularly valuable in home zones, because they will give legal status to uses of the road for purposes other than the traditional one of "passing and repassing"—for example, purposes such as children's play, or simply standing around and talking. Safeguards will ensure that rights of passage, and access to premises, are protected.
Speed orders will enable the local traffic authority to introduce measures in individual quiet lanes and home zones to reduce traffic speeds below levels specified in the orders.
The amendment does not provide for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders to be given formal precedence over motor vehicles, which was included in the Liberal Democrat amendment. The Government have thought carefully about that and I am glad to say that we are entirely at one with the Liberal Democrats on the objective, but we believe that it can be achieved within the existing law. We would not want to duplicate existing provisions.
Amendment No. 122—the rural road hierarchy clause—is less complex. However, I believe that it embraces the essence of the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The clause commits the Secretary of State to undertake a review of all the considerations


required to implement the rural road hierarchy, to engage the devolved Administrations and to publish a report within 12 months.

Mr. Brake: I am obviously disappointed that the Government have not chosen to allow precedence to be given to walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. However, I seek clarification on one aspect of the amendment. Am I right in thinking that the Secretary of State will be required to authorise each home zone scheme? I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case because it would be extremely impractical.

Mr. Drew: I very much welcome the changes. Believe it or not, the subject of speed is the hottest topic in my neck of the woods. Next week, as I seem to do every week, I shall meet constituents to talk about speeding, which is a nuisance in their lives and threatens, in particular, younger people.
I am concerned about the need for strategic planning to make the most effective use of home zones, speed control and changes in use. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be categorically stated in local transport plans and the partnership agreements that arise from them? Does he also agree that we should be making it clear to local authorities that they have an obligation not just to roll such schemes forward one at a time, but to ensure that there is cohesion and definite strategic thinking as regards their operation?

Mr. Don Foster: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in welcoming the amendments, and thank the Minister for generously acknowledging that they are based on amendments that were proposed by my noble Friends in another place.
It is fair, therefore, that I should pay tribute to the Government, and I acknowledge that they have already provided the opportunity for a number of home zone schemes to take place on a trial basis. It is interesting that the Government have agreed to the schemes taking place on a wider basis before we have had the results of the trials. Will the Minister say how those trials are proceeding?
Does the Minister agree that one problem is that local authorities have not given adequate attention to preparing the public for the introduction of home zones? They have not done enough to get the signs right to ensure that people can find their way around the areas covered by the schemes. Will he ensure that the Department provides advice on that to local authorities?
Has the Minister had an opportunity to see the recent work in Bradford? The local authority has introduced new speed limits as part of a home zone-type scheme. I was extremely impressed, as I am sure he would be, to see that it has not only used the traditional 20 mile-an-hour sign with a red circle around it, but—for whatever reason and by whatever authority I know not—ensured that the signs include illustrations by local school children of the benefits of cars travelling at slow speeds. If the Minister is not aware of that scheme, will he find out about it and let me and other interested Members know by what authority Bradford did that, so that I can at least get my local authority legally to pick up what is a very good idea?

Mr. Hill: I shall begin by responding to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). He asked for confirmation that each home zone would not require authorisation by the Secretary of State. That is the case. The Secretary of State will need to authorise use orders and speed orders, but not home zones as such.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked about strategic direction in the planning of home zones. He is absolutely right to identify local transport plans as the appropriate vehicle for the development and proposal of home zones. We certainly expect home zones and quiet lanes to be included in local transport plans where appropriate. By way of anecdote, I had a meeting recently with Wiltshire county council, which has some very exciting proposals for quiet lanes as part of its local transport plans. We shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion that we might include some guidance on the matter. At the moment, however, we do not insist on either the inclusion of home zones and quiet lanes in local transport plans, or a strategic plan on the matter.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for his kind words on this subject. He is perfectly right; I think that there are 11 pilot home zones at the moment. He asked how they were going. The home zone in my constituency, which I hasten to add was designated prior to my elevation to this high office, is not going at all, and I am bearing down on my local authority on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who as we all know has been a great proponent of home zones, was telling me that the one in Peterborough at least is going splendidly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be following up his reminder that one needs to track progress of home zones.
I shall certainly follow up the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about signs in Bradford. He asked by what authority Bradford had engaged in what sounds like a splendid initiative—especially the involvement of local schoolchildren. I shall write to him on the subject. I suspect that his point that the public are often not prepared for home zones is right, but that is of course the purpose of pilot schemes. We shall be garnering the experiences of the pilot schemes and, I dare say, providing advice in due course.
I am delighted that we have been able to conclude our proceedings on such a note of joy and unanimity.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 122 to 235 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 31: Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. Phil Hope, and Mr. Robert Syms to be members of the Committee; Mr. Nick Raynsford to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — Connex South Central

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

10 pm

Mr. Tom Brake: It is appropriate to follow a transport debate with a debate about Connex South Central and its franchise. The Minister knows that the debate on Connex is one of Parliament's regular features; it happens every couple of months. I am sure that commuters in Carshalton Beeches, Carshalton, Wallington, Waddon and Hackbridge and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) would have it no other way.
The chronology of the franchise is well known. It was awarded in the dying days of the Conservative Government, and taken away from Connex and given to GoVia on 24 October. The period immediately before and after that date is of interest to my constituents. With a great fanfare, the contract was awarded to GoVia, but there were many similarities between the GoVia bid and that of Connex. I hope that the Minister can reveal the decisive factor in opting for GoVia rather than Connex. I am sure that he has had discussions about that with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. Perhaps he can also explain how awarding the contract to GoVia fitted the Government's railway strategy.
Since the announcement that the franchise has been awarded to GoVia, there has been a deafening silence. In an attempt to get the ball rolling and to ensure that commuters know where they stand, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have asked GoVia to commit itself to a 10-point action plan. Before outlining its content, I shall set out Connex's current position. The way in which Connex deals with the matter is crucial because it officially runs the franchise until 2003. In the past, the Minister has confirmed that there is little that the Government can do in practice if Connex chooses to hang on to the bitter end.
I understand that the chief executives of Connex and GoVia have met, and that GoVia wants the handover to happen early in 2001, although it is anticipated that it may take longer. I am pleased that Connex has said that it will be as co-operative as possible, but that various matters need to be tackled before the handover can take place. Does the Minister have a view about the likely handover date? Has he set a deadline, even if it is only in his mind, by which it must happen?
Connex has confirmed to GoVia that it wants the franchise to be passed on as a going concern so that the staff are transferred in an orderly fashion. Clearly, I want that, as do local commuters. A protracted handover could lead to staff departures, which would cripple GoVia's ability to run the service. What measures are in place to ensure an orderly transition? Will the Minister confirm that he expects Connex staff to be transferred to GoVia under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981?
Clearly, staff morale at Connex cannot be good since the loss of the franchise. Staff will seek reassurances about terms, conditions and pensions—a subject that we discussed earlier in relation to National Air Traffic Services—after the handover. Connex has stated that it is a big company and that it is in its interest to maintain its

reputation by not allowing standards to go downhill between now and the handover. It has also confirmed that planned investment will go ahead. I am afraid that that is not necessarily the view of its customers.
Before I came to the House for the Adjournment debate, I heard a message that had been left on my office answering machine by someone who travels from Redhill on Connex. He said that he was already seeing deteriorations in the service and that such problems were caused not so much by bad weather as by the lack of train crew. Obviously, his concern is that the problems will worsen as the handover date approaches.
What does the Minister think Connex needs to do if it is to bid successfully for a rail franchise? As I said, there was relatively little difference between the Connex and GoVia proposals for the Connex South Central franchise. During the recent bad weather and disruption, Connex staff acquitted themselves fairly well in difficult circumstances. I have spoken with their representatives and know that some staff have been attacked by stressed passengers in the past few weeks.
I shall not discuss in detail all the points in GoVia's action plan because my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam also wants to speak, but it touched on the need to ensure that a proper plan of all intended works is displayed in stations so that passengers know exactly why they will experience disruption, and on the need to improve punctuality and closed circuit television systems.
The items that we listed in the 10-point action plan had been raised with us by commuters. If GoVia can guarantee to deliver those 10 points, commuters will believe that the end of their troubles is in sight. GoVia responded to our action plan by specifically saying that it would seek to keep customers as fully informed as possible of its plans and of progress, and that it envisaged displaying material in stations and on its website. It is also keen, apparently, to keep local Members of Parliament informed.
A key point is to make such information available, because customers—commuters—need to know that the service will probably get worse before it can improve. Investment is required and disruption may result from that. GoVia intends to introduce a new fleet of trains and to redevelop all stations. The fact that it will provide investment led it to assure us that it will deal with poor maintenance and cleaning. What are the Minister's views on how high levels of cleanliness can be enforced?
GoVia guarantees to replace its slam-door rolling stock by December 2004 at the latest, but says that that programme will be gradual and reliant on the delivery of new stock. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that GoVia does not have an opt-out clause—it must deliver replacements for the slam-door rolling stock by that date, irrespective of any reliance on the delivery of new stock. It will spend heavily on improving communications systems and will improve punctuality and run longer trains. That will be extremely welcome in the London borough of Sutton, where we all too often suffer from overcrowded trains. Has the Minister or the shadow SRA made a specific requirement to reduce overcrowding as part of the franchise deal to which GoVia will sign up?
GoVia will improve its customer services department. What does the Minister expect the turnaround time for complaints to be in that enhanced department? It will run more trains later, especially at weekends if there is


sufficient demand. Does the Minister agree that, with leisure use booming, train companies should provide services that run much later on Fridays and Saturdays? That would allow people who go up to town for shows to get home at a reasonable hour.
Apparently, station security will be improved. What commitment does the Minister think the company will have to make to ensuring that all its stations are safe, and how soon will that have to happen?
The final point that we raised with the company related to orbital services. The company said that it would commit itself to providing the services outlined in its franchise, and that any other suggestions would be considered. Have the Government any plans to work with the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor to develop orbital rail services? That is surely one of the key ways of reducing traffic congestion. More orbital rail services will enable commuters who currently cannot travel into London and leave London by train, because it takes too long, to cut out a lot of car commuting in our part of London.
I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam a few minutes, so I will make just one final point. It was not included in our 10-point plan, but I want to put it on the record now. Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Paddington rail crash revealed that Thameslink—owned by GoVia—had a poor record in driver training, and a poor record in regard to scrutinising new recruits. What assurances have the Minister and the shadow SRA sought, in relation to training standards and the vetting procedures that will be employed by GoVia once it is running what is currently the Connex South Central service?
I apologise to the Minister. Once again, I have bombarded him with a series of questions. I see that he is on his own—there is no one in the Box to assist—but I hope he will be able to respond to those questions in detail in the near future, in writing if he cannot respond immediately. If he can respond, he will give commuters in Carshalton and Wallington a sense of security and some hope about the future of their train services, at a time when a sense of security and hope for the future of local rail services is distinctly missing.

Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister is probably almost as much of an expert on the services our constituents receive as we are. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) rightly observed that on this occasion there might not be anyone in the Box to assist the Minister, the Minister has participated in a number of debates on Connex South Central, and has been helpful in responding to concerns that my hon. Friend and I have raised. I think that, as a result, the Minister has become familiar with those concerns. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter again this evening, given the way in which the franchise process has proceeded. It is quite appropriate at this point, with the award of the contract to GoVia, for us to raise the concerns outlined by my hon. Friend, as well as one or two points that I want to raise. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate; I also thank the Minister for the opportunity to speak.
Many of my constituents are pleased that Connex South Central has lost the franchise and that GoVia will take it on. They see it as a new beginning, and hope that that

new beginning will bear fruit—that they will receive a better service than they have experienced over the past few years. I fully support the 10-point plan outlined by my hon. Friend, on which he and I worked together, and I think that many of the hard-pressed commuters with whom I have shared train journeys to this place from Cheam will support it too.
The franchise system that Members inherited after the general election seemed to many to be about rewarding poor service. It was all about saying that if a train was run on time, it was all right to run it overcrowded and short. It is that sort of service that has made travelling a misery in London. That is why all the indicators suggest that Londoners feel let down by Connex and others, and it is why my hon. Friend and I have raised these issues on a number of occasions in Adjournment debates over the past year or so. We feel very strongly about them.
My hon. Friend and I have taken a close interest in rail services and have followed the franchise and refranchising process step by step. I want to place on record my gratitude and that of my hon. Friend to both companies for their participation in the process, especially the way in which, in June, they took up our invitation to attend a public meeting—a public rail question time—and directly engage with their commuters about their plans. My hon. Friend and I and the 100 or so commuters who attended that meeting found it very useful in informing our views. It has certainly shaped the development of the 10 points that my hon. Friend outlined this evening.
I touched on this issue in a previous Adjournment debate, but especially now that the award has gone to GoVia, it is absolutely crucial to ensure a smooth transition from Connex South Central to GoVia—the new train operating company. As my hon. Friend has rightly said, Connex has a commitment to delivering planned investment. It must be delivered across the network for which Connex is currently responsible, especially for the services and infrastructure in our constituencies about which we have campaigned for some time.
From travelling on the trains and talking to constituents, I know that the fear is that the standards are already slipping and that they will slip further during this interregnum. Therefore, information about the timetable and how long commuters must wait until GoVia takes over needs to be clearly put on record as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend has said, there has been a deafening silence about the timetable.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the safeguards are and how the transition period will be monitored to ensure that Connex continues to deliver at least the current standard of service and, better still, starts to make improvements. Connex has been running on a pretty ropy timetable for months on end, and it is about time our constituents and other rail users who rely on Connex South Central started to see some improvements.
Planned investment brings me to my final point: investment in the stations in the area. The Minister will know that I have campaigned for some time for improvements to Sutton and Cheam stations. I am grateful to the Minister for his interventions, which have helped to get Connex off its backside and investing in Cheam station. That has borne fruit; we have a canopy on the London-bound platform, so we no longer get wet when waiting for trains in the morning.
I hope that the rest of the programme will be delivered and that the Minister will ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority will continue to keep Connex to its promises. Sutton station still appears to be in flux. Hoardings are still up, and it is not clear whether the company will honour the timetable that it said it would. I hope that the Minister can deal with that—if not tonight, perhaps he could write to my hon. Friend and me.
The 20-year franchise must transform the services that my constituents receive. Rail users have had a lousy service for the past few years, and they expect better. I hope that the Government can assure us that the service will be better in future.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate and providing a further opportunity for the House to discuss the Connex South Central rail franchise. He secured an Adjournment debate on this very subject on 11 April. I welcome this opportunity to update him on the progress made with the replacement of the south central franchise and to assure him that the issues that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) have raised are, or will be, considered as part of the replacement franchise process.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington commented on my knowledge of the issue. My knowledge has been developed by the educational experience of debating Connex South Central with him and his hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, but I also have a keen interest in the matter, both as the Minister for Transport in London and as the Member of Parliament for Streatham, two of whose stations—Streatham Hill and Streatham Common—are currently served by Connex South Central rail services.
The House will be aware of the rail network's continuing problems, which have been caused by adverse weather conditions and temporary speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack in the aftermath of the tragic accident at Hatfield. Connex South Central services to and from London are suffering severe delays and cancellations resulting from 20 mph emergency speed restrictions. The company is not operating an emergency timetable, but has planned a series of cancellations about which passengers have been informed. Flooding and embankment damage was the greatest concern on the Brighton main line, which was blocked between Haywards Heath and Brighton. However, I am delighted that the line reopened on Monday afternoon.
It is clear that both the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam welcome the franchising director's announcement on 24 October that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority had signed heads of terms with GoVia, the current operators of the Thameslink franchise, as the preferred counterparty for the new replacement south central franchise.
GoVia plans to brand the services, which run to south London, Gatwick airport, Brighton and the south coast, the New Southern Railway. It is expected to run the business for 20 years and, over that period, to implement

an investment programme valued at up to £1.5 billion. That will include the introduction of new rolling stock, upgrading key routes and all stations to raise standards, improving train service performance, and providing additional capacity.
A new franchise agreement will be signed with GoVia once detailed negotiations and funding plans have been developed. GoVia may take over the franchise earlier under the terms of the existing franchise agreement with Connex, subject to agreement of terms for the early transfer of the franchise, which is due to expire in May 2003. It is for the parties to agree the date on which the change will come into effect, in consultation with the franchising director. I have no powers in that regard.
GoVia will continue to work up the investments, which will be delivered as soon as possible after the new franchise agreement comes into force, taking account of Railtrack planned works and Thameslink 2000 works. In the meantime, Connex is required to continue to meet the requirements of its franchise agreement, including service provision, performance regimes, station standards and customer satisfaction requirements, until the transfer has been made. Failure to comply may put it in breach of its current contract. That may be taken into account by the franchising director when evaluating proposals for future franchises in the replacement process.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked how the newly announced franchise fitted in with the Government's strategy for franchising. The objective of franchise replacement is to secure the earliest possible delivery of better railway services for passengers, including many of the aspirations raised by the hon. Gentleman, while providing demonstrable value for money for the taxpayer.
It is envisaged that that objective will be achieved on the basis of long-term replacement franchises that will seek to commit to a continuous improvement in safety; to deliver improvements in the quality of service to passengers; to ensure expansion of network capacity and high investment; to treat franchisees and train operators as partners, sharing the risks and rewards that the industry offers; and to encourage operators to build brands, develop markets and provide innovative customer service initiatives.
This is intended to achieve demonstrable benefits to passengers, covering the whole door-to-door journey experience. To focus attention on that, interested parties have been asked to take account at an early stage of service quality and customer care issues.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to his 10-point action plan. I confess that my briefing indicates that it is merely his action plan. I am delighted to hear that it is a joint effort and that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has also evolved that plan.

Mr. Don Foster: I agree with it, too.

Mr. Hill: I understand it now receives the endorsement of the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman—that is endorsement indeed. Hon. Members have made some specific points to which they would like GoVia to sign up, to ensure that their constituents receive the standard of service that they need. GoVia is already committed to some of the points. I shall deal briefly with the main ones.
All stations will be brought up to secure station standard, with investment in lighting, CCTV, help points and appropriate staff presence. GoVia will work with the British Transport police and the civil police to crack down on crime. Punctuality will be improved. There will be improved information and additional retail staff, customer assistance and revenue protection staff.
Slam-door rolling stock, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred, will start being replaced by late 2001, and all mark 1 stock will be replaced by the end of 2004 at the latest. GoVia will be introducing new trains each year through the life of the franchise. We expect GoVia to deliver those commitments, and it is the franchising director's job to monitor delivery and to ensure that it is secured.
Additionally, trains will have automatic passenger-load monitoring facilities to help GoVia to provide the resources to meet demand. GoVia is also committed to investment in depots, which includes improved cleaning facilities. All train interiors and stations will be cleaned daily.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has written to GoVia's group marketing director, who I am sure will give due consideration to all the concerns put to him. The hon. Gentleman has also sought assurances on safety. GoVia has undertaken to support all forthcoming industry safety initiatives and to comply with all relevant recommendations of current inquiries.
I should like to deal with the early benefits expected from the new franchise, and have already mentioned new rolling stock. It is intended that 396 vehicles will be delivered by the end of 2002, a further 334 by the end of 2004, and a total of 1,000 new vehicles throughout the term of the franchise.
The infrastructure on the Arun valley line will be upgraded in 2004, and the Brighton main line in 2006, to provide greater capacity.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend know whether GoVia has agreed to take on Connex's obligation on the Hastings to Ashford upgrade? That is a particularly important route to Europe for my constituents in Hastings and Rye.

Mr. Hill: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has asked that question, as I know that he is eager to represent his constituents' interests. I am therefore delighted to add that, also in 2004, there will be upgrading of infrastructure facilities to allow faster trains to overtake stopping services on the south coastway, and the electrification of the lines between Ashford and Hastings and between Uckfield and Hurst Green, providing through electric trains between London and Uckfield.
I tell hon. Gentlemen that £200 million will be invested on station improvements over the duration of the franchise, and 37 stations will be developed as community and retail centres. There will also be improved access for disabled passengers, new car parking, and rail/bus integration in conjunction with local authorities, to form quality partnerships.
I shall deal now with the essential issue of the Sutton and Cheam stations. I understand that, on 10 November, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority wrote to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to reassure him that existing and planned work on Sutton and Cheam stations should not be adversely affected by the change of franchisee. I hope that that will be of reassurance to him.

Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman also ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority takes on board the 10 points that my hon. Friend has made to him today?

Mr. Hill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Hansard record of this debate will be sent to the Strategic Rail Authority. I also assure him that the Orbirail concept is the subject of current investigation and discussion between the Mayor of London and the Strategic Rail Authority.
I trust that the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Sutton and Cheam will be reassured that selecting GoVia as the preferred counterparty for the replacement south central franchise was done after full consultation and will reinforce the higher standards that we want to establish across the industry. If there are any questions with which I have not dealt, I shall write to hon. Gentlemen in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.